I got a couple interesting comments on my last post. Donald first raised the Rule of Lenity because the statute is poorly written. I couldn't quite get there, but it did start me thinking. What if you ignored the way the Court did its analysis and looked at the statute as a whole, considering "knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person" as a verbal phrase, thus rendering "transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person" into a multi-part verb all of which is modified by knowingly. However, while the thought was still nascent in the slow-grinding gears in my head, Neal Goldfarb stepped up and pointed to a blog post and his amicus brief. Both put forth strong arguments for that position. Both are better than the Supreme Court's "'cuz it looks right" explanation.
However, as textual interpretation is not strictly the same as grammar, I must say that I am not entirely persuaded by their arguments. The language of the statute is sloppy, but it does leave 2 separate occurrences which the defendant could have knowledge of: (1) the transfer, possession, or use & (2) the actual state of the identification. Knowing of a transfer does not require knowledge of the state of the identification. Knowing the state of an identification does not require knowledge of its transfer.
Still, the verbal phrase argument carries enough weight to make the phrase ambiguous and thus brings the Rule of Ambiguity into play. This then requires that a knowledge requirement be added to a means of identification of another person, because ambiguous statutes are to be interpreted in favor of the defendant.
Disclosure: I think the above to be a correct reading of the statute in its entirety. However, as I have previously stated on this blawg, I find strict liability in criminal statutes to be an anathema. I may be straining to get away from a reading which requires a strict liability if the identification happens to be that of another person, whether the defendant knows it to be or not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular entries
-
" I didn't drink! I was kissing a boy who was drunk! "
-
Now, here's a tactic I've not yet seen in court (not sure this one will work for us guys).
-
According to Computerworld Security, Google has started collecting images of European streets for its Street View feature, but is holding of...
-
Y'know, it's kinda cool that the governor is up on his history, but is contemplating a pardon for Billy the Kid really that importa...
-
The General Assembly has relented and decided to allow us (at least some of us) to have judges again . As of 01 July 2011 we in the 30th wil...
-
With Google's recent launch of Street View in Europe and imminent photographing of Canadian cities, I thought I'd do some quick look...
-
Remind me to close up my er . . . not take up spamming .
-
An entire room dedicated to him at the prosecutor's office and "the alleged scam actually would be his third in a decade operated o...
-
June 14, 2002 WGA UNVEILS NEW LOW BUDGET AGREEMENT The Writers Guild has announced a new agreement for indie films with budgets of $750,000...