Eaton v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that whether the defendant is a member of a group specifically authorized to possess firearms is an affirmative defense, rather than an element of the crime
• finding that to prove lack of authority, the People are merely required to affirmatively establish that Defendant Jamal Morton was not duly licensed to carry a firearm
• reasoning that a defendant convicted under Section 2253 either did not assert that he was authorized or exempt at trial or made this assertion but it was rejected by the jury
• holding “a criminal statute is impermissibly vague ... [if] it fails to give fair notice of the conduct which would subject one to penal consequences and where it sets no standard for its enforcement.”
• upholding a $15,000 fine for possession of a firearm as not excessive because it fell within the statutory guidelines
• “a criminal statute is impermissibly vague ... [if] it fails to give fair notice of the conduct which would subject one to penal consequences and where it sets no standard for its enforcement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).