United States v. Cory Griffin
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13651
7th Cir.2012Background
- Griffin, a felon, moved into his parents’ single-family home in Milwaukee after prison and started community supervision with firearm restrictions.
- Probation officer Perry conducted a home visit and advised that there could be no firearms in the home if Griffin lived there, though she did not testify she informed Griffin directly.
- Police later executed a warrant at the Griffin home, recovering ten firearms and five sets of ammunition owned by Griffin’s father and friends; Griffin was charged with possession of all items found.
- The government alleged Griffin constructively possessed the firearms and ammunition found at the home, despite no evidence of his actual possession or fingerprints on the items.
- Perry testified about standard procedure for supervisees discovering guns, and the defense argued there was no linkage showing Griffin intended to exercise dominion over the firearms.
- The district court instructed the jury on unanimous verdict for possession of specific firearms or ammunition, and Griffin was convicted of possession of a shotgun behind a kitchen door and two sets of ammunition found on the stairs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove constructive possession in a joint residence | Griffin: residency plus proximity not enough to prove possession | Griffin: no nexus showing intent to exercise control over items | Conviction reversed; no evidence of Griffin’s intent to control the items |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Katz, 582 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2009) (constructive possession requires nexus to the contraband)
- United States v. Morris, 576 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2009) (proximity alone is insufficient; need substantial connection)
- United States v. Castillo, 406 F.3d 806 (7th Cir. 2005) (exclusive control allows inference of possession; otherwise nexus required)
- United States v. Pritchard, 745 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1984) (presence at defendant’s residence supports constructive possession)
- United States v. Thomas, 321 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2003) (even close proximity requires some link to items)
- United States v. Richardson, 208 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2000) (substantial connection to contraband in residence needed)
- United States v. Windom, 19 F.3d 1190 (7th Cir. 1994) (cases require nexus beyond mere occupancy)