Luna-Aquino v. United States

Brief of the National Association of Federal Defenders and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Brief filed: 06/09/2022

Documents

Luna-Aquino v. United States

United States Supreme Court; Case No. 21-7958

Argument(s)

This case presents the question of the appropriate mens rea requirement for substantive drug offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 960. Section 960(a), which codifies the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, prohibits “knowingly or intentionally” importing or exporting a controlled substance. Section 960(b), in turn, specifies a series of aggravated offenses—and correspondingly severe punishments—based on the type and quantity of the “controlled substance” involved. See 21 U.S.C. § 960(b). A defendant who imports or distributes 280 grams of crack-cocaine, for instance, faces a mandatory minimum of ten years in prison. Id. § 960(b)(1)(C). A defendant who imports or distributes the same amount of marijuana faces no mandatory minimum and only a five-year statutory maximum. Id. § 960(b)(4) (cross-referencing id. § 841(b)(1)(D)). The question in this case is whether the government can subject a defendant to these escalating mandatory minimums and maximums without proving that he knew which illegal drug he was importing or the quantity of that illegal drug. The answer is no: Courts presume a statutory mens rea requirement applies to “all the material elements of the offense.” Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2195 (2019) (internal citation omitted). And any fact that increases the statutory minimum or maximum under Section 960 (or any other statute) is an element of an offense. See Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 116 (2013); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 476–85 (2000). Therefore, defendants must know what drug they were importing before a court can subject them to statutorily increased sentences. See United States v. Collazo, 984 F.3d 1308, 1338 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (Fletcher, J., dissenting).

Author(s)

Jessica Stengel, Davina Chen, and Judith Mitzner, National Association of Federal Defenders, Salt Lake City, UT; Jeffrey L. Fisher, O'Melveney & Myers, Menlo Park, CA; Kendall Turner, O'Melveny & Myers, Washington, DC; Branton Nestor, O'Melveny & Myers, Newport Beach, CA.

Explore keywords to find information

RECENTLY ADDED & UPCOMING

  1. The Champion
    March/April 2025 Cover

    March/April 2025

    What are the evidentiary implications of field sobriety tests in marijuana cases? Does the odor of marijuana give officers probable cause to search a vehicle?

  2. Amicus Brief
    March/April 2025 Cover

    Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President

    Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and New York Council of Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

  3. News Release

    Nation’s Defense Bar Reiterates Opposition to Actions Against Law Firms – Washington, DC (March 18, 2025)

    The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) remains deeply concerned over recent executive orders targeting law firms, most recently Paul Weiss and Perkins Coie, and repeats its call to uphold the right to counsel and the independence of the legal profession. Despite a ruling blocking the action against Perkins Coie, the administration has continued to target law firms representing disfavored clients and positions, threatening the right to a zealous defense.

  4. Live Event
    2025 Forensic Science & Technology Seminar Cover

    2025 Forensic Science & Technology Seminar

    "Making Sense of Science: Forensic Science, Technology & the Law"

    LOCATION: Sahara Las Vegas Hotel & Casino, Las Vegas, NV
    DATES: April 24-26, 2025

  5. Trials, Technology, and the Fourth Amendment: Case Law Review [Engage & Exchange]

    EXCLUSIVE NACDL MEMBER BENEFIT
    WHEN:
    Tuesday, April 29, 2:00-3:30pm ET / 11:00am-12:30pm PT
    CLE CREDIT: not available
    COST: Free

Featured Products