Castillo, Jaime v. U.S. (06/05/2000)

By: Eric Noe, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Is it unconstitutional for a judge to use a legal theory to implicate five defendants convicted of possession and use of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime (voluntary manslaughter of four federal agents), even though only two of the men were proved to have held weapons when the crime occurred and none of the men were directly linked to the agents deaths? And is it unconstitutional for the judge to imply the type of weapon used in the crime during sentencing and invoke increased sentencing without the consent of a jury?

Brief

On Feb. 28, 1993, four agents of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms were killed as they tried to serve arrest warrants on David Koresh and his followers at the compound of the Branch Davidians in Mount Carmel, Texas.

Koresh, a former high school dropout, led the obscure religious group and lured almost 100 followers into the compound, called Ranch Apocalypse, based on a belief that he was the Messiah. The Davidians were under investigation for stockpiling and illegally manufacturing weapons and ammunition within their Mount Carmel home.

Federal officials believed Koresh intended to lead a violent showdown against the ATF, and 100 agents were deployed to serve the warrants. In addition to the four agents, at least six Davidian members were killed during the Feb. 28 confrontation.

A 51-day standoff ensued between the Davidians, ATF agents and the FBI. Federal agents again stormed the compound on April 21, and the fire resulting from the exchange led to the deaths of 79 cult members.

In January 1994, 11 surviving Davidians went on trial for charges related to the murder of the ATF agents. Included in the prosecution were charges that the defendants had conspired to murder federal agents and possessed and used automatic weapons during the commission of the crime.

Defense attorneys argued that the Davidians acted in self-defense after federal agents attacked the compound, and questions were raised about the right of federal agencies to orchestrate a siege into the home of American citizens.

The trial came on the heels of a similar standoff between federal authorities and white separatist Randy Weaver in Idaho in 1992. Weaver was acquitted of the murder of a U.S. marshal in July 1993, and prosecutors in the Davidian case faced intense pressure to gain convictions.

Three of the Davidians were acquitted of all charges; one was convicted on a separate weapons charge; six were convicted of the voluntary manslaughter of a federal officer and possession of machine guns; and one was convicted only on the possession charge.

U.S. District Judge Walter Smith initially threw out the weapons possession convictions because the jury had found the Davidians innocent of the conspiracy charge, but he reinstated the convictions before sentencing.

Judge Smith sentenced Jaime Castillo, Brad Branch, Renos Avraam, Livingston Fagan and Kevin Whitecliff to 40 years in prison — 10 years each on the manslaughter convictions and additional 30-year terms for possessing and using machine guns during the commission of their crimes.

A sixth defendant, Graeme Leonard Craddock, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for manslaughter, but only 10 additional years on the possession charge because Judge Smith believed Craddock showed remorse for his involvement.

The 30-year terms were dependent upon the possession of automatic weapons or hand grenades because possession of lesser weapons dictates shorter sentences. The jury was not asked to consider the type of weapons used. Judge Smith made that determination on his own during sentencing.

Evidence presented at trial placed guns in the hands of only Branch and Avraam on the day of the killings, but Judge Smith imposed the enhanced sentences based on the ""fortress theory,"" which provides that a defendant can be convicted of possession and use of a weapon without proof if there are ""large numbers of firearms readily available for use in strategic locations."" The Davidians home was stocked with converted automatic weapons, and proof was presented that many Davidian members received weapons and paramilitary training while living at the Mount Carmel compound.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions for the six men sentenced to the enhanced sentences in 1996 but asked Judge Smith to re-evaluate the 30-year weapons possession sentences. Judge Smith upheld the sentences in September 1997 based on the Pinkerton doctrine, which states that members of an organization involved in a conspiracy are responsible for the actions of their co-conspirators.

Castillo, Branch, Avraam, Craddock and Whitecliff appealed again. In June 1999, a unanimous 5th Circuit panel upheld the sentences. The court found that although the jury was not presented specific evidence linking each man with the crime, a preponderance of evidence linked each to the possession of automatic weapons.

In his opinion, Appeals Judge Emilio M. Garza wrote, ""We decline to reconsider our prior decision that the type of firearm used or carried is a sentencing enhancement, and not an element of the offense."" He continued: ""We have noted that Ôit is well-established that the preponderance of evidence is the applicable standard for sentencing purposes.""

The court also ruled that Judge Smith was on solid legal ground in using the Pinkerton precedent to implicate all of the defendants: ""For us to depart from the mandate rule, the defendants must show that we previously were Ôdead wrong. They have not done so. Accordingly, we decline to reconsider our prior approval of the district courts application of the Pinkerton doctrine.""

On Jan. 14, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, and on June 5, reversed, unanimously holding that the trial judge erred by not allowing the jury to consider whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, a machine gun was used in the exchange.

""We believe Congress intended the firearm type-related words it used...to refer to an element of a separate, aggravated crime,"" Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the Court.