963 F.3d 710
7th Cir.2020Background
- Robert Triggs was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) for possessing firearms based on a 2008 misdemeanor battery conviction involving his then-girlfriend.
- The 2008 conviction was for Wisconsin simple battery; the charging documents referenced domestic-abuse procedures but the record lacks clear indication Triggs knew the elements or consequences. He proceeded pro se, signed an incomplete plea questionnaire, and entered no-contest pleas; judge’s colloquy was brief and did not describe elements or a firearm prohibition.
- Triggs was later found in possession of rifles (2015); he attempted to purchase a firearm post-conviction and was denied, and his guns were voluntarily surrendered after officers informed him he was prohibited.
- Triggs filed a conditional guilty plea in federal court reserving an appeal of a rejected as-applied Second Amendment challenge; after his plea, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif (2019), adding a knowledge-of-status element to § 922(g) prosecutions.
- The government conceded the Rehaif error was plain; the Seventh Circuit assessed prejudice under the plain-error standard (whether Triggs showed a reasonable probability he would not have pleaded guilty if he had known of the Rehaif element).
- The court found the statutory definition of “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” complex, the state-court record weak on notice of status, and therefore concluded Triggs plausibly could show prejudice; the conviction was vacated and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rehaif error requires reversal of plea under plain-error (prejudice) | Triggs: He plausibly did not know his 2008 conviction met § 921(a)(33) and would have gone to trial if Rehaif applied | Gov: Error conceded but argues no prejudice because evidence (e.g., purchase denial) shows Triggs knew his status | Held: Triggs met his burden of reasonable probability of not pleading; prejudice established; vacated and remanded |
| Whether Rehaif error is structural (automatic prejudice) | Triggs: Rehaif should be treated as structural error requiring automatic relief | Gov: Rehaif is not structural; apply plain-error prejudice inquiry | Held: Not structural; Seventh Circuit rejects automatic-prejudice theory (applies plain-error review) |
| Scope of Rehaif knowledge element | Triggs: (implied) Rehaif requires government to prove awareness of prohibited status (not awareness of illegality) | Gov: (as interpreted by circuit) Rehaif does not require proof defendant knew his status made possession illegal | Held: Circuit follows Maez—government must prove defendant knew he had the relevant status (not that he knew possession was illegal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (holding government must prove defendant knew he belonged to the prohibited category under § 922(g))
- United States v. Maez, 960 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2020) (interpreting Rehaif to require knowledge of status, not knowledge that status made possession illegal)
- United States v. Williams, 946 F.3d 968 (7th Cir. 2020) (burden on defendant to show withdrawal of plea based on Rehaif error; plain-error framework applied)
- United States v. Dowthard, 948 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2020) (discussing difficulty of showing prejudice where status is straightforward, e.g., felon dispossession)
- Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (plain-error prejudice standard for plea withdrawal)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (unchallenged guilty plea must be knowing and voluntary; convictions entered on unknowing pleas violate due process)