Whitfield v. United States

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Whitfield v. United States

Case Details
Key Topics in the Case

Documents

Prior Decision

Decision below 548 Fed. Appx. 70 (4th Cir.(N.C.) Dec 10, 2013) (NO. 12-4956).

The rule of lenity supports the narrow construction of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e) urged by petitioner in this case. The phrase “forces any person to accompany him” is ambiguous. The statute’s ambiguity increases the risk of inconsistent application. Section 2113€ requires substantial movement. The Court should adopt a clear rule for interpreting the forced accompaniment provision of § 2113(e). Specific rules are especially important in applying vague mandatory minimum statutes. The conflicting tests used by lower courts to interpret § 2113(e) are inadequate. In interpreting the statute, the Court should rely on the distinction for kidnapping already drawn in the Model Penal Code (MPC). Under the MPC test, the petitioner’s § 2113(e) conviction should be reversed.

Featured Products

Author(s)

Jeffrey T. Green and Rebecca J. Johnson, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC; Jonathan Hacker, Washington, DC.

Explore keywords to find information