United States v. Aaron Taylor
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15332
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Taylor, a Federal Detention Center inmate in SHU, attacked Bistrian with a razor improvised shank after a period of taunting, and the incident was videotaped.
- 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3) criminalizes assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm and without just cause or excuse, raising whether just cause or excuse is an element or an affirmative defense.
- District Court held that just cause or excuse is an affirmative defense, placing burden on Taylor to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence, and precluded additional justification witnesses while not instructing the jury on justification.
- Trial record shows Taylor testified; district court allowed testimony but blocked further corroborating witnesses, and the jury was instructed on elements but not on justification; Taylor was convicted and sentenced.
- On appeal, Taylor challenges the lack of a justification instruction, the admissibility/necessity of testimony, Fifth Amendment concerns about testifying, and selective-prosecution claims, all of which the Third Circuit denied, affirming the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absence of just cause or excuse is an element or defense | Taylor argues it is an element requiring proof beyond doubt | Taylor bears burden as to justification under the statute | Just cause or excuse is an affirmative defense; defendant bears burden of proof by preponderance |
| Whether the district court erred in excluding witnesses and denying a justification instruction | Proffered witnesses would support justification; the defense sought an instruction | Evidence insufficient to establish justification as a matter of law | District court did not err; defense evidence insufficient to sustain justification; no instruction required |
| Whether Taylor's Fifth Amendment rights were violated by reliance on testimony to present justification | Brooks v. Tennessee concerns forcing testimony | Court did not force testimony; allowed testimony with no prerequisite impact | No Fifth Amendment violation |
| Whether the indictment admission of justification affects selective-prosecution claim | Selective prosecution claim warranted discovery and possible dismissal | Prosecution not shown to be discriminatory or lacking reasonable basis | No abuse of discretion; no clear evidence of discriminatory intent or effect |
| Whether Dixon and related common-law principles support burden allocation to defendant | Common-law rules shift burden to defendant for defenses | Statutory language and McKelvey-based analysis align with burden on defendant | Dixon and McKelvey-based framework supports burden on defendant for just-cause-or-excuse defense |
Key Cases Cited
- McKelvey v. United States, 260 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1922) (burden to prove exceptions or defenses rests on the actor when an exception is an independent clause)
- Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2006) (affirmative defenses rest on the defendant; common-law rules apply to justification/duress)
- Guilbert, 692 F.2d 1340 (11th Cir. 1982) (affirmative defense treatment of just cause or excuse discussed as defense, not element)
- Hockenberry v. United States, 422 F.2d 171 (9th Cir. 1970) (early articulation that absence of just cause or excuse need not be pleaded or proven by government)
- Prentiss, 206 F.3d 960 (10th Cir. 2000) (tests for whether exception is element or defense under McKelvey framework)