Introduction

In United States of America v. Michael Andrew Gary, 963 F.3d 420 (4th Cir. 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed the classification of a Rehaif error within the framework of constitutional error reviews. The case centered around the denial of a petition for rehearing en banc by the court, wherein the defendant, Michael Andrew Gary, challenged the classification of Rehaif errors as structural errors. The key issue revolved around whether errors related to a defendant's knowledge of their felony status should be treated as structural, thereby precluding harmless or plain-error reviews.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc filed by the United States as the appellee and opposed by the defendant, Michael Andrew Gary. The majority decision upheld the panel's stance that Rehaif errors are structural errors, which cannot be subjected to harmless or plain-error review. Judge Wilkinson, concurring in the denial, expressed strong disagreement with the panel's decision, arguing that treating Rehaif errors as structural undermines established precedents and imposes significant burdens on the criminal justice system. However, the court ultimately maintained the panel's classification, thereby reinforcing the notion that Rehaif errors impact the fundamental framework of a trial.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents to justify the classification of Rehaif errors:

• Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019): Established that the government must prove a defendant's knowledge of their felony status in violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
• United States v. Burghardt, 939 F.3d 397 (1st Cir. 2019); United States v. Balde, 943 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2019); and others: Demonstrated that other circuits do not treat Rehaif errors as structural.
• In Rehaif v. United States: Highlighted that structural errors are rare and typically involve fundamental flaws in the trial process.
• NEDER v. UNITED STATES, 527 U.S. 1 (1999): Clarified that errors related to elements of a charge do not inherently constitute structural errors.

Judge Wilkinson emphasizes that prior to this decision, no other circuit had treated a Rehaif error as structural, thereby highlighting a significant divergence within the federal appellate system.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centers on the definition and scope of structural errors. Structural errors are those that inherently compromise the integrity of the entire trial process, such as denial of the right to counsel or racial bias in jury selection. These errors are distinguished from non-structural errors, which pertain to specific elements of a case and do not pervade the trial's foundational framework.

In this case, the panel deemed Rehaif errors as structural, arguing that they affect the fundamental fairness of the trial by impinging on the defendant's substantial rights. However, Judge Wilkinson contends that Rehaif errors do not meet the high threshold required for structural classification. He argues that such errors are fact-dependent and should be subject to harmless or plain-error reviews, aligning with how other circuits have treated similar issues.

The concurrence underscores the inconsiderate shift from established legal standards, emphasizing that structural errors are exceptional and should not be broadly applied to procedural nuances like Rehaif errors.

Impact

The affirmation of Rehaif errors as structural within the Fourth Circuit has far-reaching implications:

• Circuit Split: Creates a significant divergence among federal circuits, potentially leading to inconsistent application of the law across jurisdictions.
• Judicial Resources: Anticipates a surge in cases seeking to challenge guilty pleas based on Rehaif errors, straining court resources.
• Finality of Pleas: Undermines the finality of guilty pleas, a cornerstone of the criminal justice system, by allowing for broader grounds to vacate such pleas.
• Supreme Court Involvement: The concurring opinion suggests that the issue may warrant Supreme Court review to harmonize the interpretation of Rehaif errors nationwide.

Moreover, the decision may lead to an increase in litigation as defendants leverage the structural classification to challenge their convictions, particularly in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rehaif Error

A Rehaif error refers to a procedural mistake related to the defendant's knowledge of their status as a felon at the time of possessing a firearm, as established in Rehaif v. United States.

Structural Error

Structural errors are fundamental flaws in the judicial process that affect the entire trial's integrity, such as biased juries or denial of legal counsel. They are distinguished from errors that affect only specific aspects of the case.

Harmless Error Review

This is a legal standard used to determine whether an error made during a trial significantly impacted the outcome. If the error is deemed harmless, the conviction stands despite the mistake.

Plain-Error Review

A type of appellate review where the court examines errors that were not objected to during the trial but are clear or obvious and affect substantial rights.

En Banc Review

A procedure where an appellate case is heard before all the judges of a court rather than by a smaller panel, typically reserved for cases of exceptional importance or to resolve inconsistencies within the court.

Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit's decision to deny the en banc rehearing in United States v. Gary, thereby affirming the classification of Rehaif errors as structural, marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation of constitutional errors within criminal proceedings. While the panel's decision aligns with a stricter classification of structural errors, the concurring opinion highlights significant concerns regarding consistency, judicial resource allocation, and the overarching principles of finality in the criminal justice system. As this creates a notable circuit split, the Supreme Court may be called upon to resolve these discrepancies, ensuring a more uniform application of the law across jurisdictions. The ruling underscores the delicate balance between upholding procedural integrity and maintaining an efficient, fair judicial process.