Special Events - Voice For The Defense Online

IIVI. RULE OF ~ ~ H WAt the very least, 3 1958 is ambiguous.bl Indeed, the factthat two different Pinh Circuit panels interpreted g 1958 differently62and that the en banc Fifth Circuit disagreed ten to five, as to § 1958'smeaning show that 8 1958 is ambignot1s.6~ If a statute is reasonablysusceptible to hvo different interpretations, one of which raises seriousconstitutional concerns, it is tlte court's duty to adopt the constructionthat will save the statute from constitutional in!i~mity~~ This ivle oflenity is com elled by the Due Process Clause of the FifthAniendmer~t!~ Thus, any ambiguity in the scope of $ 1958 must beresolved in favor of a narrow construction that tvquires interstate activityCourts should apply the rule of lenity and hold that 5 1958 appliesonly to interstate activii):b6 Consequently, the government must prove1beyond a reasonable doubt that the caller/sender and the recipient werenot in the same s1ate.~7REFERENCES1. Assistant Eedeid Public Defender, Southern District of Texas, Houston,Texxs. BA., University of Texas at Austin; J.D , University of Houston lawCenter. The author, a former briehg attorney to the Honorxble FmnkMaloney, Judge, Texas Court of Ctlmi~ial Appeals, now specializes in fedenlc~imi!id app&.2. United States v. Cisneros, 194 E3d 626 (5th Cir. 19991, ~(~mrerl, 203E3d 333 (5th Cir.), reb'gen bancgranted, 206 E3d 449 (5th Cic 2000);United States v. bhrek, 198 E3d 532 (5th Cir. 19991, reb'g en bmcgraftfed, 206 E3d 449 (5th Cir. 2000).3. Cismms, 203 E3d at 337.4. Id at 343-45.5.11Iawk, 198 E3d at 533.6. Id at 537.7. United States v. Marek, 206 E3d 449 (5th Cir. 2000). On May 22,2000, the author argued Ms. Marek's case before the US. Court ofAppeals for the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc.8. UnitedStatesx Marek, No. 98-40568, 2001 WL 10561 (Rh Cir. Jan. 4,2001) (en banc).9. 18 U.S.C. g 1958(a) (emphasis added).10. 18 U.S.C. 6 195Nb) (2) (emulmis added).11. United ~taies v. Weathers, 16j E3d 336,342 (6th Cir.), cer~ denied,120 S. Ct. 101 (1999).12. Id13. Id at 341 (citing United Stales v. Bany, 888 EZd 1092, 1095 (6th a.14. Weathers, 169 E3d at 341;Barry, 888 E2d at 1095.15. lYenthers, 169 E3d at 341-42.16. Cisi~eiw, 203 K3d at 340(citing WP~R's11 Nw COLLEGED ~ m 557, w 759 (HoughtonMBhl Co. 1995)); see UnitedStates v. Miles, 122 E3d 235,246 (5th Cir, 1997) (DeMoss,J., specially concl~rring) (distinguishingbetween "of' and "in"interstate commerce), cert.denied, 523 U.S. 1011 (1998).17. Cisnems, 203 F.3d at 333.18. Id at 33943.19 United States v. Paredes,950 E Supp. 584,587 (S.D.N.Y.1996).20. illarek, 198 R3d at 535.21. Id.22. Id at 537.23. Alarek, 2001 WI. 10561, at*l.24. Id at *7. The dissent similarlyfound that subsections (a)and (b1(2) do not conflict. Idat *11 (Jolly, Jones, Smith,Barksdale, and Dehfoss,JJ., dissenting).25. ~TIarek, 2001 WL 10561, atY.26. fd at *ll (Jolly, Jones, Sniitii, Bathdale, and DeMoss, JJ., dissenting);see infiff tex! accompanying notes 47-52.27. United Statesv. Edelman, 873 E2d 791, 794 (5th Cir. 1989).28. I8 U.S.C. 3 1952.29. Bnq: 888 E2d at 1092; H.R. Rep. No. 87-966 (1961), ~epifnted in1961 U.S.C C.A.N 2664,2665.30. H.R. Rep. No. 87-966 (196l), reprinled in 1961 U3.C CAN. 2664,2666 (emphasis added).31. 1I.R. Rep. No. 87-966 (1961), reprinfedin 1961 U.S.C.CA.N. 2664,2665 (emphasis added).32. H.R Rep. No. 87-966 (19611, reprinfedifi 1961 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2664,2666.