U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments Barrett v. United States
6 snips
Oct 7, 2025 In this riveting discussion, Mr. Larson, a veteran appellate counsel, argues that 18 U.S.C. §924(c) should be viewed as a lesser-included offense of §924(j), challenging the double jeopardy implications. Ms. Brown, representing the DOJ, counters that the statutes allow for separate punishments and explores their textual interplay. Mr. McLeod, as amicus counsel, reinforces the argument for cumulative punishments based on statutory design. The interplay between conviction, sentencing, and legislative intent shines through in their engaging legal debate.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Possession Is A Lesser-Included Offense
- Mr. Larson argues 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A) possession is a lesser-included offense of §924(j) lethal use, triggering the Blockburger presumption against cumulative punishment.
- He emphasizes Congress did not clearly authorize stacking C and J punishments and knew how to do so when it wanted (e.g., C5 for armor-piercing rounds).
Seek Clear Authorizing Language
- Look for explicit authorizing language when deciding if Congress intended cumulative punishments, not just concurrent/consecutive rules about sentencing.
- Treat sentencing-structure clauses as procedural instructions, not as clear authorizations to double punish the same conduct.
Three Decades Without Legislative Fix
- Mr. Larson notes Congress had 31 years after §924(j) to change any perceived anomaly but did not, suggesting acceptance of J's standalone penalties.
- He argues §924J was designed to punish killing sufficiently on its own, making additional C punishment unlikely intended.