United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2012-06-14
18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed
Case and law context
Role: background; posture: criminal; jury ACQUITTED the defendant on the 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession-of-ammunition count (count one) and convicted on two 21 U.S.C. 841 drug counts; he appeals only the drug convictions (constructive-possession instruction, Rule 404(b), sufficiency); affirmed; result: not-decided; claim: (g)(1)
Uncertainty
None recorded
Misfit
Negative finding: the opinion does not decide possession, commerce or knowledge under 922(g). The only 922(g) count ended in a jury acquittal that is not (and could not be) on appeal; the affirmed sufficiency holding is about cocaine under 21 U.S.C. 841.
A jury acquittal has no slot: it is a lower-court outcome against the claimant on an unidentified element, with no finding and no reasons (basis table has nothing for "not proved to the jury's satisfaction"); `result` has no value for "claimant lost below, claim not before this court", so not-decided is used.
The constructive-possession rule is cross-statutory (the same instruction served the 841 and 922(g) counts); the notation cannot say that a rule block under one law is really a ruling made on another law's conviction.
The appellate court uses the acquittal as evidence that the jury understood the instruction (hidden ammunition vs. drugs in plain view); that inferential use of a verdict is recorded only as a cuts-against fact line.
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 12
| Case | One applicable prohibited category | Section 925(a)(1) government-use firearm or ammunition exception | Actual or constructive possession | Firearm or ammunition under section 921 | Possession in or affecting commerce | Knowledge of possessing the firearm or ammunition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Cochran — 683 F.3d 1314 (2012) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2012 (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: rule-announced/procedural | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 12
| Case | Knowledge of the relevant disqualifying status | Second Amendment limit on the unlawful-user theory applied to Hemani | Ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce | Knowing shipping, transportation or receipt | Receipt of the prohibited object | Received object previously shipped or transported across borders |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Cochran — 683 F.3d 1314 (2012) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2012 (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Cochran — 683 F.3d 1314 (2012) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2012 — not reached (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Actual or constructive possession | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / procedural claim: (g)(1); count: count one (ammunition in a bedroom dresser drawer); jury acquittal, not reviewed; theory: constructive possession inferred from control of the premises (jury instruction common to the ammunition and drug counts); subject: count=count one (ammunition in a bedroom dresser drawer); jury acquittal, not reviewed; theory=constructive possession inferred from control of the premises (jury instruction common to the ammunition and drug counts) Not a 922(g) ruling. The court disapproves (but finds non-prejudicial) an instruction that "constructive possession also occurs if a person exercises ownership, dominion, or control over a thing or premises concealing the thing": premises control only permits an inference, and the knowledge/intention requirement must not be dropped. The instruction governed count one as well (the jury asked whether it applied to "knowingly possess" in count one), but the jury acquitted on that count and the sufficiency holding concerns only the drugs. The fact lines are trial evidence bearing on the ammunition; no court weighed them for 922(g). | contraband-in-residence-defendant-has-key-to | Inside the house, authorities found ammunition in a dresser drawer in one of the bedrooms;Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_683.jsonl#/f3d/683/1314-01; Unicode character offsets [1660:1750] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7db571a70483552481a39357bf165a785f043ac340fa121cef5a896c700dcb1c.Witt testified that he searched Cochran and found in Cochran’s pocket a key that unlocked the door of the residence.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_683.jsonl#/f3d/683/1314-01; Unicode character offsets [4364:4480] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7db571a70483552481a39357bf165a785f043ac340fa121cef5a896c700dcb1c.He also obtained Cochran’s driver’s license, which reflects that Cochran’s address is 116, rather than 110, Lucille Avenue.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_683.jsonl#/f3d/683/1314-01; Unicode character offsets [4481:4604] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7db571a70483552481a39357bf165a785f043ac340fa121cef5a896c700dcb1c.The jury’s decision to convict Cochran of the drug charges but acquit him of the ammunition charges demonstrates an understanding of that instruction, given that the ammunition was hidden in a bedroom dresser drawer while the drugs were located in plain sight in the converted garage and present in common areas of the home.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_683.jsonl#/f3d/683/1314-01; Unicode character offsets [14590:14914] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7db571a70483552481a39357bf165a785f043ac340fa121cef5a896c700dcb1c.We have indicated that the essence of constructive possession is the power to control the contraband itself and that control of the premises simply permits an inference of that power.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_683.jsonl#/f3d/683/1314-01; Unicode character offsets [12451:12634] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7db571a70483552481a39357bf165a785f043ac340fa121cef5a896c700dcb1c.Such a juxtaposition could create an inference that constructive possession, as defined by the government’s instruction, lacks an intentionality requirement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_683.jsonl#/f3d/683/1314-01; Unicode character offsets [11784:11941] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7db571a70483552481a39357bf165a785f043ac340fa121cef5a896c700dcb1c.In conclusion, although we disapprove of the constructive possession instruction given to the jury, we do not find that under the circumstances of this particular case it misled the jury or prejudiced Cochran.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_683.jsonl#/f3d/683/1314-01; Unicode character offsets [21190:21399] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7db571a70483552481a39357bf165a785f043ac340fa121cef5a896c700dcb1c. |