Webb aide's gun charge dropped by prosecutor

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting WashPost recap. It seems the "mens rea" argument usually doesn't fly in DC:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702138_pf.html

Prosecutors Drop Gun Case Against Webb Aide

By Henri E. Cauvin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 28, 2007; B01

Prosecutors yesterday dismissed the case against a top aide to Sen. James Webb who was accused of bringing a loaded pistol into the Russell Senate Office Building.

Phillip Thompson, executive assistant to Webb (D-Va.), had been charged with carrying a pistol without a license after Capitol Police found the loaded gun and ammunition March 26 during a routine screening of his briefcase. Thompson said that Webb owned the weapon and that he did not realize he was carrying it.

Jeffrey A. Taylor, U.S. attorney for the District, said in a statement late yesterday that his office concluded that the essential elements of the charge could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Among other things, lawyers said, prosecutors would had to have shown that Thompson knew he had the gun.

Filed in D.C. Superior Court, the dismissal ends an embarrassing episode for Webb, a gun rights advocate, and Thompson, a former Marine who has known Webb for years.

Thompson, 45, was entering the Russell Building when the gun and ammunition were discovered. Capitol Police seized the firearm and arrested Thompson, who spent a night in jail before his release.

The aide told authorities that the incident was a mistake and that he was "safekeeping" the gun for Webb. He also said he had inadvertently left it in a briefcase he was carrying for the senator.

Webb later confirmed that Thompson "inadvertently" brought the gun into the building, but he has been sketchy in providing further details. At one point, Webb declared his right to defend himself and his family from world dangers after the Sept. 11 attacks. Members of Congress and designated employees can bring unloaded guns into the Capitol, but Webb said he has never carried a gun into the Capitol complex.

In a statement yesterday, the first-year senator praised Thompson and applauded the decision to drop the gun charge.

"As I said at the time when this incident occurred, Phillip Thompson is a trusted aide and a fine man. I have great confidence in him," the statement said. "As I also said at the time, I believe that this incident was an inadvertent oversight and I am pleased that the authorities in the District of Columbia have now reached that same conclusion."

In announcing the decision not to prosecute the case, Taylor commended the Capitol Police for taking "swift action" and handling the case with "the utmost professionalism and dignity."

Terrance W. Gainer, Senate sergeant at arms, said, "We want to affirm that our officers took the proper action," adding that dropping the charge was "part of the system. I respect their prosecutorial decision."

But Lou Cannon, president of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 1, which represents the Capitol Police, was disappointed.

"I can't say it's political, but something that smells like a fish usually is a fish," Cannon said. "It sends mixed messages about whether there are double standards."

Richard E. Gardiner, defense attorney for Thompson, said he was told by the prosecutor on the case that a video recording of the incident had been reviewed and that statements had been taken from all of the officers present at the time.

"There was apparently complete unanimity that Mr. Thompson was totally stunned and clearly did not know that the gun was in there," Gardiner said.

The District has one of the nation's strictest gun laws, permitting only law enforcement officers to carry handguns in the city. Prosecutors have typically not accepted ignorance of the city law as a defense.

But defense attorneys not associated with the case said Thompson's situation is different.

"If they can't prove you knew the gun was there, then it's a defense," said Michael Starr, a defense attorney at the firm of Schertler and Onorato.

Billy Martin, a former senior prosecutor who is a partner at Sutherland Asbill and Brennan, said that the U.S. attorney's office is careful in gun cases and that the outcome in Thompson's case appears to be right. "It goes to the legal requirement of knowledge and intent," he said.

Gardiner, who was an attorney for the National Rifle Association for many years and is a leading advocate for gun rights, said he had not expected yesterday's decision.

"I'm surprised because generally prosecutors don't do that," Gardiner said.
"But I'm pleased that there was at least one prosecutor in that office who looked at the law and looked at the facts and evaluated the case."

Gardiner said Thompson told him that he did not want to comment on the dismissal.

Staff writers Allison Klein and Mary Beth Sheridan contributed to this report.
 
At one point, Webb declared his right to defend himself and his family from world dangers after the Sept. 11 attacks.
But, do we, the peasents, have the same rights in the same town?
"I can't say it's political, but something that smells like a fish usually is a fish," Cannon said. "It sends mixed messages about whether there are double standards.
I disagree completely. To ME, it proves there is a double standard.
Prosecutors have typically not accepted ignorance of the city law as a defense.
So, why this time? Connections?
"But I'm pleased that there was at least one prosecutor in that office who looked at the law and looked at the facts and evaluated the case."
I wonder if they would look at it the same way for me and you? Not no, but hell no.
 
I'm with the folks here who are happy that they didn't file charges. Let's watch the anti gun left get mad, not us. Also, it does set a precedent that hopefully could be pointed to when the next of us commoners makes a "mistake". I say celebrate this and tick off any anti gun liberals you can with the story. We need to look for ways to use weapons against our opponents instead of using them to whip ourselves bloody. Verstehen Sie? :evil:
 
Back in leo school in the 60's, criminal intent was a foundation element in the law. It was pounded into us. Some folks confused intent with ignorance of the law. There is a difference. Webb's aid de helper would not have a defense if he didn't know there were strict laws about carrying concealed. The burden is upon the individual to "know" what the laws are. Intent is another matter. If he didn't know the firearm was in the case, how could he have intent to break the law? LE can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the gun was there. Ego: no intent. No crime.

Proving intent as an element to a criminal act doesn't seem to be the case anymore with the nonsensical "zero tolerance" crap we have in the place of law today.
 
Shouldn't we be applauding the prosecutors' decision to drop the case? Then we could urge that no similar case should be prosecuted. I thought that gun owners didn't want gun control or anti-gun laws.
 
Shouldn't we be applauding the prosecutors' decision to drop the case? Then we could urge that no similar case should be prosecuted. I thought that gun owners didn't want gun control or anti-gun laws.

Agreed! But it doesn't work like that. There are obviously two sets of laws.
 
could any of you point to a similar case in dc where someone was hung out to drive? i can give you a couple others with same actions
 
No evidence of mens rea. It seems to me it should be dismissed.

By that standard, all gun laws are invalid on their face and unenforceable. But they're still on the books and being zealously prosecuted...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top