McFadden v. United States (14-378)

argument 14-378

McFadden v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue in McFadden v. United States?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in case fourteen three

Unknown 0:03

hundred and seventy eight, McFadden versus United States. Mr Russell? Mm-hmm. Mr. Chief Justice, I may it please the court. The briefing in this court has narrowed considerably the disagreement among the parties. We now all agree that the Fourth Circuit misconstrued the Mensrea element for a criminal offence uh under the Controlled Substance Analog Act. And we further agree that the jury instructions actually given in this case were erroneous. Instead, we and the government now agree that to prove an offense, the government must show that the defendant knowingly distributed an analogue. And we further agree that the government may do that by showing that the defendant knew that the substance in question had the characteristics that made it an analog under the statute.

Unknown 0:40

Where we may disagree is over the government's alternative theory that it can instead show that the defendant knew that the substance was illegal or regulated. If all the government means by that is illegal or regulated under the statute of conviction, the Controlled Substances Act itself, we would agree, but the government would simply lose because, as it's acknowledged, the evidence in this case tended to show that my client did not believe that his conduct violated the CSA itself.

Anthony M. Kennedy 1:05

Just to make sure I understand all that you're agreeing on. You do agree. That if the defendant knew that the substance was illegal under the Controlled Substances Act or the Analog Act, Even though the defendant didn't know the chemical structure, Were the particular effects. Say that the dealer had handed him a box and said This is our new analogue which is illegal under this under the analogue act. You would You agree that that is sufficient for a conviction?

Unknown 1:36

We do agree with that. And I think that that is simply a special application of the general rule that the defendant has to know the facts that make his conduct unlawful because he knows in that circumstance the only fact he needs to know in order to know that what he is doing. What about the expert testimony from chemists? Is that still put on in the trial? Does the government still have to show put on an expert to say, well, this is um chemically modified but it's substantially similar? And the jury sits there knowing that it doesn't have to listen to this? I mean how does that work? They do have to show that because the government still has to prove that it is in fact an analog. They have to both show that the defendant.

Unknown 2:14

Well, but does the d jury have to understand the chemical testimony? They they've got to make the determination that it is in fact chemically substantially similar. I acknowledge that that's a lot to ask of a jury. It's a lot to ask of of a defendant to understand that. But it is the government's burden to show both composition in relation to the control substance and the the effect of the drug. Those uh those the government must prove. But what we have out of the way is that the defendant now doesn't have to know, you agree, the defendant has doesn't have to understand the chemical structure. She doesn't have to understand the chemical structure if the government can prove that the defendant knew that the substance was illegal under the Controlled Substances Act itself.

John G. Roberts 3:00

Well, the boy, the government has given up a lot getting to this point, and I think you've just given up a lot. I I would have thought your your position that you have to know that it's regulated under the Chemical Substances of Controlled Substances Act. It seems to me is is contrary to the proposition that ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you didn't know, I didn't know this was regulated, you would say he's he's innocent uh because he didn't know the law. I thought your position was that you do have to know, as in all the other cases uh in the Mensray area, the the facts that make your conduct illegal. You don't have to know that it is illegal.

Unknown 3:37

That that is certainly our principal position. We are willing to say, however, that either whether you consider it a special exception to that rule or a special application to that rule, if the government can show that the defendant knows that the substance is illegal under the statute of conviction, that serves the basic purpose of the knowledge of fact requirement, which is And