Student’s Name
Professor
Course
Date of Submission
The United States versus Nixon Case
Mixon’s case involves a declaration of possessing ammunition. Mixon was convicted of possessing the ammunition after the police officers found him having an antique which had five 9mm rounds. The government could not prosecute him because of the gun alone since it is only prohibited to carry firearms. According to the Gun Control Act, the antique firearm is not classified as a firearm and therefore, he was charged with having the 9mm rounds. Felons are not allowed to have ammunition. After a bench trial, Mixon was found guilty after he tried to dismiss the theory on the same. It was said that the local police had stopped him after suspecting that he had intentions of robbing a video store. It was at this time he was found carrying the gadget with five bullets. The government later discovered that the gun was identified to be a .38-caliber Hopkins & Allen revolver which Mixon could legally own since it was manufactured before 1899. Due to the bullets loaded inside, it was decided by the government that Mixon was guilty regardless of the gun exclusion. In this paper, the United States versus Mixon case will be discussed to a profound extent with regards to its significance in the criminal justice system and how it represents major crime judgments in the courts today
In self-defense, he dismissed the charges saying that the police did not have a proper reason as to why they stopped him and did the search. It was then when the judge decided to do an evidentiary proof, and one of the police officers who arrested him was there to testify. The officer said that he was conducting a patrol regarding suspicious personnel in the area when he stopped and searched Mixon as well as another man, and that is when he discovered the loaded gun in the pocket (Findlaw, pg 1).
After the testimony from the officer, Mixon did mention nothing, and thus the judge concluded that the two men deserved to be thoroughly searched as they had reasonable doubt and suspicion to do so. Before any other word from the district court, Mixon raised a plea agreement that could have forsaken the undecided motion. He still didn’t understand the implication of having the bullets in the antique firearm. After entering the guilty plea, Mixon decided to withdraw that plea on the point that he entered it on the mistaken belief. Judge Stadtmueller is the one who allowed Mixon to withdraw his plea and dismissed himself from the case involvement. After judge Stadtmueller walked away, judge Clevert took over.
The first thing he did was to handle the motion which was not tackled. He received more evidence on the motion he came up with. At this juncture, Moxin said he didn’t even know he was carrying a gun in his pocket and neither did he consent being searched. The government then introduced the 9mm bullets as evidence which led to Mixon to be termed as not being credible. Mixon reconsidered the suppression decision and filed a motion to let go of the alignment. Since the proceedings of the case started, Moxin for the first time said that it was not a crime to own ammunition loaded with an antique firearm. The magistrate judge then noted that the bullets were designed in a way that they could be used in other guns which could qualify to be firearms and therefore it was of no use to mention that they were loaded on an antique firearm and thus the district court dismissed the motion.
The parties proceeded with written stipulations, and they recounted that the bullets were Russian made and were loaded into a “.38 caliber Hopkins & Allen revolver.” There was nothing quoted on whether the same bullets could be used in another gun neither did the age of the antique be mentioned. Nothing was said of whether the same bullets could safely be fired from this gun (Mason, et.al pg. 31). The district court convicted Mixon, and he was given a 45months imprisonment. Mixon clearly states that a gun is not considered a “firearm” under the Gun Control Act if and only if it was manufactured before 1899. He also adds that ammunition is prohibited if it is designed for a firearm and therefore the bullets intended for the antique should not be an issue when felons possess them.
It is recorded in the statue that; “a felon may not ship or transport in the regional or foreign market, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition” (Findlaw, pg. 1). In its definition, it excludes any gun that was made in or before 1898 or which in other terms is known as the antique. It was so unfortunate that during the trial none of the parties mentioned that or even presented evidence on the same. This shows that both the government and Mixon failed. The question then is, if the government knew about it, why was it not raised during the trial?
The Gun Control Act defines ammunition as any product or rather anything that is designed to be used in a firearm. This then clearly tells us that a bullet, since it is intended to be used in a gun is ammunition (Bassiouni, pg. 9). Mixon during the trial points out that even if bullets are termed as ammunition when they are loaded in an antique or rather in a firearm designed in or before 1898, it doesn’t matter whether they can be loaded in other guns, but then they remain not to be ammunition. According to this statement then Mixon should have been termed as innocent since he claims to have had an antique. Is it right or not? No one bothered to find out the fact about it.Mixon tries to pose a compelling argument during the trial. At the very end what matters is the evidence or the proof that is provided and not the many cases without support that Mixon portrayed. Yes, he said that the gun was antique but what proof did he have to show that it was an antique statistically? The government was able to produce the 9mm bullets as proof to the court. It was also able to bring a police officer to testify against him. Again when the 9mm bullets were presented, that was still not enough evidence that the bullets were ammunition. But for a person like Mixon who was not ready to explain and fully defend that the bullets were designed for antique, it was full proof.
It is right to say that it is the design of the bullet that mattered and not necessarily the location. Bullets were in the cylinder, but again that does not describe what they are designed for. Mixon did not even establish any equivalency of measures when he moved to dismiss the motion. He didn’t show that it’s not the size of the bullet that describes what it’s designed for. One can say that the 9mm bullets are likely to be used in a 38-caliber gun that Mixon was found with. Is size the only factor affecting the designing of a bullet?
As for the trial, Mixon almost entirely neglected his defense by missing the facts necessary to establish it from the evidence. In his few attempts to dismiss the motions, he failed to provide any evidence that would show or support the fact that the bullets were designed to be used in that gun and not in any other firearm as perceived by the government. Most importantly, he did not stand firm to explain that the 38-caliber handgun was manufactured in or before 1898 or in other words was an antique firearm (US v. Mixon, 7th Cir.). He failed to give stipulated evidence which could have supported his arguments as well his attempts to dismiss the motions during the trial.
Since the government was able to provide evidence when Mixon was guilty or innocent that did not matter in the long run, therefore, as the experimental evidence reveals or shows, Mixon was caught with gun bullets. Both the gun and the bullets that he was found with he could not legally possess them as a felon. However much the trial went under legal processes, we can see there is the likelihood of innocent people getting in trouble. For instance, Mixon not being able to provide evidence in the district court places him in great difficulty. The government can give evidence in court as well as asking the police officer to testify against Mixon which he is not able to deny since he lacks substantial evidence.
If only Mixon dared to explain and probably provide evidence about the firearm having been manufactured in 1898 or before, then he could have resolved a lot of questions during the trial. The gun is an antique could have solved almost every questioning in the court basing everything on the Gun Control Act.
From the above discussion, the United States versus Mixon case is a significant elaboration and a good representation of major crime judgments in the courts today. Its therefore of importance that everyone speaks out their minds as well as is provided with the necessary personnel like lawyers who can help them and thus avoid such scenarios whereby one is judged for not being able to speak up.
Work Cited
“Findlaw’s United States Seventh Circuit Case And Opinions.”. Findlaw, 2019, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1226354.html.
Bassiouni, M. Cherif. International extradition: United States law and practice. Oxford University Press, 2014.
Burchell, Jonathan M. Principles of criminal law. Juta and Company Ltd, 2013.
Mason, Alpheus Thomas, and Donald Grier Stephenson Jr. American constitutional law: introductory essays and selected cases. Routledge, 2017.
Pound, Roscoe. Criminal justice in America. Routledge, 2018.
US v. Mixon, 457 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2006).
