United States v. Harold Ford
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 241
4th Cir.2013Background
- Ford was tried in 2009 for unlawful firearms possession as a felon with a prior qualifying conviction.
- Evidence included Ford’s 2003 North Carolina possession with intent to distribute marijuana conviction, argued to be a predicate felony.
- Circuit precedent at the time allowed that 2003 conviction to qualify under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) based on Harp’s standard.
- Ford moved for acquittal; the district court denied, citing Fourth Circuit precedent.
- On appeal, the Simmons en banc decision overruled Harp and required a different predicate-analysis standard.
- On remand, the government retried Ford using other convictions; Ford pled guilty conditionally and challenged retrial as double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does retrial after a reversal based on post-trial change in law violate double jeopardy? | Ford argues reversal bars retrial on double jeopardy. | Government maintains retrial permitted when reversal arises from new law, not trial error. | Retrial permitted; no double jeopardy bar. |
| Was Ford subjected to double jeopardy because the 2009 conviction was reversed under Simmons? | Ford asserts reversal shows insufficiency of evidence under the law at trial. | Government asserts change in law caused insufficiency, not proof failure. | No double jeopardy bar; reversal due to post-trial law change allowed retrial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (double jeopardy limits retry after acquittal for insufficient evidence)
- Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988) (retrial after trial error allows under certain conditions)
- Ellyson, 326 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2003) (post-trial change in law permits retrial; error attributed to law, not proof)
- Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc; overruled Harp on predicate crime for § 922(g)(1))
- Harp, 406 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2005) (definition of crime punishable by more than a year prior to Simmons)
- Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010) (Supreme Court case on federal sentencing qualification post-trial)
- Green, 139 F.3d 1002 (4th Cir. 1998) (reversal for trial error treated as akin to trial error)