Source: cases/18usc924/us-516-137-bailey-v-us.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_516/0137_01/index.html
We agree with petitioners, and hold that § 924(c)(1) requires evidence sufficient to show an active employment of the firearm by the defendant, a use that makes the firearm an operative factor in relation to the predicate offense.
A defendant cannot be charged under § 924(c)(1) merely for storing a weapon near drugs or drug proceeds.
Having determined that “use” denotes active employment, we must conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support either Bailey’s or Robinson’s conviction for “use” under § 924(c)(1).
If the gun is not disclosed or mentioned by the offender, it is not actively employed, and it is not “used.”
Placement for later active use does not constitute “use.”
We reverse both judgments.
The active-employment understanding of “use” certainly includes brandishing, displaying, bartering, striking with, and, most obviously, firing or attempting to fire a firearm.
Thus, a reference to a firearm calculated to bring about a change in the circumstances of the predicate offense is a “use,” just as the silent but obvious and forceful presence of a gun on a table can be a “use.”
a firearm can be carried without being used, e. g., when an offender keeps a gun hidden in his clothing throughout a drug transaction.
Because the Court of Appeals did not consider liability under the “carry” prong of § 924(c)(1) for Bailey or Robinson, we remand for consideration of that basis for upholding the convictions.
casedsl 1 case /us/516/0137-01 name Bailey v. United States cite 516 U.S. 137 (1995) court Supreme Court of the United States date 1995-12-06 url catalog/cases/us/volume_516/0137_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl sha1=0cc113c31b74ca2d4efaeca52eb4249d8d3d1655 chars=25231 law 18usc924 (c)(1) role applied posture criminal; two jury convictions (Bailey; Robinson) under the pre-1998 "uses or carries" text, affirmed by the en banc D.C. Circuit on a proximity-and-accessibility test; certiorari on the meaning of "use"; sufficiency of the evidence of "use" decided for both defendants, "carry" remanded result remanded element use : not-satisfied [no-evidence] party Bailey variant storage/gun-in-bag-in-locked-car-trunk fact @958..1091 [supports] | A search of the passenger compartment revealed oné round of ammunition and 27 plastic bags containing a total of 30 grams of cocaine. fact @1092..1268 [supports] | After arresting Bailey, the officers searched the trunk of his car where they found, among a number of items, a large amount of cash and a bag containing a loaded 9-mm. pistol. fact @1387..1527 [supports] | A prosecution expert testified at trial that drug dealers frequently carry a firearm to protect their drugs and money as well as themselves. fact @24526..24595 [cuts-against] | The police then found a firearm inside a bag in the locked car trunk. fact @24596..24671 [cuts-against absent] | There was no evidence that Bailey actively employed the firearm in any way. rule @8748..8978 | We agree with petitioners, and hold that § 924(c)(1) requires evidence sufficient to show an active employment of the firearm by the defendant, a use that makes the firearm an operative factor in relation to the predicate offense. rule @21327..21431 | A defendant cannot be charged under § 924(c)(1) merely for storing a weapon near drugs or drug proceeds. held @24210..24398 | Having determined that “use” denotes active employment, we must conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support either Bailey’s or Robinson’s conviction for “use” under § 924(c)(1). gloss Sufficiency reversed. A loaded pistol with cash in the trunk, drugs in the passenger compartment and generic expert testimony show at most possession near drugs; nothing showed the gun was displayed, mentioned or otherwise employed. The "supports" facts are what the court below relied on under its rejected proximity/accessibility test. element use : not-satisfied [no-evidence] party Robinson variant storage/unloaded-gun-locked-in-closet-trunk-with-drugs fact @2728..2986 [supports] | Inside a locked trunk in the bedroom closet, the police found, among other things, an unloaded, holstered .22-caliber Derringer, papers and a tax return belonging to Robinson, 10.88 grams of crack cocaine, and a marked $20 bill from the first controlled buy. fact @2546..2641 [supports] | The officer observed Robinson retrieve the drugs from the bedroom of her one-bedroom apartment. fact @24672..24832 [cuts-against] | In Robinson’s case, the unloaded, holstered firearm that provided the basis for her § 924(c)(1) conviction was found locked in a footlocker in a bedroom closet. fact @24833..24900 [cuts-against absent] | No evidence showed that Robinson had actively employed the firearm. rule @22018..22126 | If the gun is not disclosed or mentioned by the offender, it is not actively employed, and it is not “used.” rule @22411..22468 | Placement for later active use does not constitute “use.” held @24901..24927 | We reverse both judgments. gloss Sufficiency reversed (same deciding sentence as the Bailey block: "the evidence was insufficient to support either Bailey's or Robinson's conviction"). Gun stored with the drugs and buy money in the room the drugs were sold from, but never disclosed or mentioned during the controlled buys. element use : not-reached role rule-announced theory illustrative catalogue of what does count as active employment (dicta) variant active/weapon rule @19705..19880 | The active-employment understanding of “use” certainly includes brandishing, displaying, bartering, striking with, and, most obviously, firing or attempting to fire a firearm. rule @20022..20234 | Thus, a reference to a firearm calculated to bring about a change in the circumstances of the predicate offense is a “use,” just as the silent but obvious and forceful presence of a gun on a table can be a “use.” gloss Not applied to either defendant; the Court lists conduct that would be "use" to bound its holding. Barter (Smith) is reaffirmed as use. element carry : not-reached role rule-announced variant on-person/conveyance rule @15303..15437 | a firearm can be carried without being used, e. g., when an offender keeps a gun hidden in his clothing throughout a drug transaction. held @25022..25213 | Because the Court of Appeals did not consider liability under the “carry” prong of § 924(c)(1) for Bailey or Robinson, we remand for consideration of that basis for upholding the convictions. gloss Both defendants were charged under both prongs; the Court says only that "carry" has a meaning independent of "use" and leaves its application (gun in a car trunk; gun in a closet) to the court below. The `rule` line is an example, not a definition of "carry" (that came in Muscarello). element during-relation : not-reached gloss The holding describes use as making the firearm "an operative factor in relation to the predicate offense", but the nexus element is not separately analysed. element predicate.drug : not-reached gloss Underlying drug offenses not contested here. misfit `result remanded` flattens a split outcome: the prosecution definitively lost the "use" theory for both defendants (two decided instances) while the alternative "carry" theory of the same count was sent back. `result` is per opinion and per law, not per conduct mode or per party. misfit The en banc D.C. Circuit's ruling that both defendants "used" the guns (proximity + accessibility) is a lower-court finding that this Court reverses (`scope superseded`); it is not given its own block because it would repeat the same fact quotes with the opposite holding. The [supports] facts in the two `use` blocks are that court's grounds. misfit Polarity is strained: the same physical fact (gun stored next to drugs/proceeds) "supports" use under the rejected test and is exactly what the Court holds legally insufficient; "locked trunk" and "unloaded, holstered" are tagged cuts-against although under the Court's rule accessibility and loaded status are simply irrelevant to "use" (known misfit 6). misfit Temporal flag missing (known misfit 10): the opinion construes the pre-1998 text; Congress later added the "possesses in furtherance" mode, under which these facts would be analysed today. The declared `possession`/`furtherance` ids are not used because the opinion does not (and could not) decide them; its statements that mere possession or storage is not "use" are not rulings on those elements. misfit The negative rule (what is NOT use: storage, placement for protection, concealment at the ready, intended future use) is the core of the opinion; it lives in `rule` lines of not-satisfied blocks and in the variant genus `storage`, with no way to mark a proposition as a "not-required/not-sufficient" rule (known misfit 2).