United States v. Hilliard
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
490 F.3d 635 (2007)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The federal government (plaintiff) prosecuted Tyrone Hilliard (defendant) for multiple drug and firearms offenses, including possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The trial evidence established that police officers searched a house and found Hilliard in illegal possession of cocaine and a handgun, which as a convicted felon, it was illegal for Hilliard to possess. Six months later, officers saw Hilliard engage in an apparent drug transaction at the same house. The officers searched the house once more, and found substantial cash and other valuables, cocaine stashed in the kitchen, drug-packing paraphernalia, and a handgun beneath a pillow in Hilliard's bedroom down the hall from the kitchen. Hilliard admitted keeping the cocaine to help him pay bills, and admitted possessing a gun illegally. Hilliard said that he kept the gun for personal protection. A police detective gave expert testimony that drug dealers often keep guns for personal protection, and that a gun found in proximity to valuables and drugs was often an indicator of illegal drug trafficking. The jury convicted Hilliard. On appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, Hilliard argued that the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of the § 924(c) offense.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Riley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.