United States v. Crawford, 4:18-cr-00104-DMB-JMV

Background:

Joe Crawford was indicted and convicted after a jury trial of two counts of selling firearms to a person he knew or had reasonable cause to believe was a felon (transactions on March 20 and June 14, 2018).
The buyer, Louis West, was a confirmed convicted felon (stipulated at trial) and acted as a government confidential informant in multiple controlled purchases.
Audio/video recordings and testimony showed West repeatedly identifying himself as a felon and discussing wanting someone who was not a felon to buy guns for him; Crawford made statements about finding someone to buy for West and about how pawnshop sales were restricted for felons.
West purchased multiple pistols and rifles from Crawford in the controlled buys; total price paid was about $4,850.
Crawford testified he did not believe West was a felon and denied bonding or bailing West; he argued at post-trial that the government failed to prove actual knowledge and failed to negate statutory exclusions in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20).
The district court denied Crawford’s post-trial motion for acquittal or a new trial, finding the evidence sufficient and the jury instruction proper.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rehaif requires proof of actual knowledge of the purchaser’s felon status under § 922(d)	United States: § 924(a)(2)’s "knowingly" applies to the sale element, not to the status element, and § 922(d) itself contains the appropriate scienter for the status ("knows or has reasonable cause to believe").	Crawford: Rehaif requires the government to prove actual knowledge of the purchaser’s prohibited status beyond a reasonable doubt.	Court: Rehaif does not impose an actual-knowledge requirement for the purchaser’s status under § 922(d); the statute’s own "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" governs.
Sufficiency of evidence to show Crawford had "reasonable cause to believe" West was a felon	United States: Recorded admissions by West and Crawford’s own statements (suggesting arranging a non-felon buyer) provided ample evidence of reasonable cause.	Crawford: West only said he was "a felon" and the government failed to disprove that West’s convictions might be excluded under § 921(a)(20).	Court: West’s repeated statements and Crawford’s remarks were sufficient for a reasonable jury to find reasonable cause; the § 921(a)(20) exclusions did not undermine sufficiency.
Whether the jury instruction erred by using "convicted felon" instead of the full § 921(a)(20) language	United States: The exclusions are not an element to be included absent evidence supporting their applicability.	Crawford: Instruction should have referenced the statutory phrase and the § 921(a)(20) exclusions.	Court: No error—Crawford presented no evidence that any § 921(a)(20) exclusion applied or that the jury needed that issue instructed.
Whether a new trial is required for errors of law or magnitude	United States: No reversible error occurred; evidence and instructions were adequate.	Crawford: Errors (instructional and sufficiency) warrant a new trial.	Court: Motion for new trial denied—no error of sufficient magnitude to justify a new trial.

Key Cases Cited

Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (held that in § 922(g) prosecutions the government must prove the defendant knew his status; analyzed scope of "knowingly" in § 924(a)(2)).
United States v. Gas Pipe, Inc., 997 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2021) (articulates the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard applicable on Rule 29 review).
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (discusses limits on applying mens rea presumptions when Congress provides an express scienter).
United States v. Broadnax, 601 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2010) (omitting § 921(a)(20) exclusionary language from a jury instruction on § 922(g) is not error where exclusions are not elements and no evidence supports them).
United States v. Parker, 262 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2001) (§ 921(a)(20) exclusions are not automatically elements of § 922 prosecutions, but a defendant may be entitled to an instruction if evidence supports applicability).
United States v. McConnel, 464 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 2006) (a purchaser’s statement that he is a felon can satisfy the seller’s reasonable-cause knowledge under § 922(d)).
United States v. Bokman, [citation="215 F. App'x 203"] (4th Cir. 2007) (unpublished opinion holding similar on sufficiency where buyer admitted felon status).
United States v. Alexander, [citation="834 F. App'x 312"] (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming that buyer’s admission of felony status supports reasonable-cause finding).