Supreme Court of the United States · 1995-12-06
18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
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; claim: (c)(1)
Uncertainty
None recorded
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.
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both defendants "used" the guns (proximity + accessibility) is a lower-court finding that this Court reverses (`scope superseded`); it is not given its own block because it would repeat the same fact quotes with the opposite holding.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.
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).
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.
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).
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 13
| Case | Qualifying federal predicate offense | Firearm object | Active employment of a firearm | Knowingly possess and convey the firearm | During and in relation to the predicate | Knowing actual or constructive possession |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/merits | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/merits | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/merits | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 13
| Case | Possession advances the specific predicate | Armor-piercing ammunition object | Use or carry the armor-piercing ammunition | Possess the armor-piercing ammunition | Section 2 aiding and abetting route | Greater minimum for the same firearm conduct displaces the lower minimum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–13 of 13
| Case | Sentencing consequences after offense proof |
|---|---|
| Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 — not reached (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Knowingly possess and convey the firearm | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c)(1) 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). | conveyance | a firearm can be carried without being used, e. g., when an offender keeps a gun hidden in his clothing throughout a drug transaction.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [15303:15437] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [25022:25213] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca. |
| Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 — not reached (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | During and in relation to the predicate | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c)(1) 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. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 — not reached (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Enumerated federal drug felony | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c)(1) Underlying drug offenses not contested here. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 — not · no-evidence (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Active employment of a firearm | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (c)(1); party: Robinson; subject: party=Robinson 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. | storage/unloaded-gun-locked-in-closet-trunk-with-drugs | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [2728:2986] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.The officer observed Robinson retrieve the drugs from the bedroom of her one-bedroom apartment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [2546:2641] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [24672:24832] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.No evidence showed that Robinson had actively employed the firearm.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [24833:24900] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.If the gun is not disclosed or mentioned by the offender, it is not actively employed, and it is not “used.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [22018:22126] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.Placement for later active use does not constitute “use.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [22411:22468] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.We reverse both judgments.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [24901:24927] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca. |
| Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 — not · no-evidence (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Active employment of a firearm | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (c)(1); party: Bailey; subject: party=Bailey 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. | storage/gun-in-bag-in-locked-car-trunk | A search of the passenger compartment revealed oné round of ammunition and 27 plastic bags containing a total of 30 grams of cocaine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [958:1091] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [1092:1268] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.A prosecution expert testified at trial that drug dealers frequently carry a firearm to protect their drugs and money as well as themselves.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [1387:1527] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.The police then found a firearm inside a bag in the locked car trunk.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [24526:24595] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.There was no evidence that Bailey actively employed the firearm in any way.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [24596:24671] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [8748:8978] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.A defendant cannot be charged under § 924(c)(1) merely for storing a weapon near drugs or drug proceeds.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [21327:21431] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.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).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [24210:24398] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca. |
| Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 — not reached (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Active employment of a firearm | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c)(1); theory: illustrative catalogue of what does count as active employment (dicta); subject: theory=illustrative catalogue of what does count as active employment (dicta) Not applied to either defendant; the Court lists conduct that would be "use" to bound its holding. Barter (Smith) is reaffirmed as use. | active/weapon | The active-employment understanding of “use” certainly includes brandishing, displaying, bartering, striking with, and, most obviously, firing or attempting to fire a firearm.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [19705:19880] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.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.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [20022:20234] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
We conclude that the language, context, and history of § 924(c)(1) indicate that the Government must show active employment of the firearm.
Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
We conclude that the language, context, and history of § 924(c)(1) indicate that the Government must show active employment of the firearm.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_516.jsonl#/us/516/0137-01; Unicode character offsets [12290:12429] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7311fa4b39948dc61528cd7cd0c33a123690902c2797221bb5e30fc1c10b56ca.Bailey predates the 1998 possession amendment. Its active-employment rule still defines use; it does not immunize possession in furtherance. Watson decides use only and expressly leaves the possession theory open.