Second Circuit Re-Affirms § 922(g)(1) Constitutionality Post-Zherka:
Comprehensive Commentary on United States v. Martin (2d Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

United States v. Martin, No. 23-7507-cr, decided by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on 1 August 2025, concerns Dennis Martin’s appeal from a federal conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Martin’s challenges were threefold:

• That his post-arrest statements should have been suppressed because his medical distress allegedly rendered his Miranda waiver involuntary;
• That § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment—particularly when applied to persons with non-violent prior felonies;
• That several evidentiary rulings during trial—including testimony about his weapons possession and impeachment concerning past misconduct—were erroneous.

The appellate court, in a non-precedential summary order, affirmed the judgment of the District of Vermont (Reiss, J.), upholding Martin’s conviction and rejecting every asserted error.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit held:

• Suppression Motion: The district court correctly found Martin’s Miranda waiver knowing and voluntary; the officers’ conduct did not overbear his will despite his medical complaints.
• Constitutional Challenge: Any argument that § 922(g)(1) is facially or as-applied unconstitutional is foreclosed by the Circuit’s recent precedential opinion in Zherka v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2025).
• Evidentiary Rulings: All challenged rulings fell within the district court’s discretion; any potential prejudice was outweighed by probative value and mitigated by limiting measures.

Consequently, the conviction and sentence were affirmed in all respects.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) & North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979) – Establish the need for and standards governing warnings and waivers.
• United States v. Anderson, 929 F.2d 96 (2d Cir. 1991); United States v. Taylor, 745 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2014); Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) – Define voluntariness analysis, especially with respect to a defendant’s mental or physical condition.
• United States v. Pabon, 871 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2017); United States v. Ganias, 824 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2016) (en banc) – Recite standards of appellate review for suppression decisions.
• Zherka v. Bondi, 140 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2025) – The controlling precedent sustaining § 922(g)(1) against Second Amendment attack; Martin’s claim is thus foreclosed.
• Evidence authorities such as Stillman v. InService Am., Inc., Paolitto v. John Brown E.&C., Inc., Royer, Al-Moayad, and Rule 401, 403, 608(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence – Provide the framework for relevance, prejudice balancing, and impeachment with prior misconduct.

These cases collectively guided the panel’s application of settled legal principles to Martin’s factual assertions.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a) Voluntariness of Statements
The panel examined the “totality of circumstances”: Martin’s health claims, the twelve-minute wait in a patrol vehicle, the written and oral Miranda advisement, the calm tone of questioning, and the short duration before hospital transport. Because there was no coercive police conduct and Martin did not ask to terminate questioning, the waiver stood.

b) Second Amendment Challenge
Following Zherka, the Second Circuit has already performed the historical inquiry mandated by N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) and concluded that bans on firearm possession by felons are “part of a well-rooted tradition” consistent with the Nation’s historical regulation of arms. Martin’s underlying felony (disturbing the peace) being non-violent did not alter that conclusion. Accordingly, the panel simply applied stare decisis.

c) Evidentiary Rulings
The court deferred to the district judge’s nuanced Rule 403 balancing: limiting testimony to explain tactical officer deployment yet excluding inflammatory state-crime specifics; permitting impeachment on truthfulness under Rule 608(b); and sanitizing references to unrelated weapons and controlled substances.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Judgment

• Second Amendment Landscape: Even though Martin is a non-precedential order, it signals that the Circuit will consistently apply Zherka to summarily reject similar § 922(g)(1) challenges, reducing litigation incentives.
• Miranda Practice: The decision re-affirms that minor delays in medical treatment, absent coercive intent or effect, will not vitiate a waiver. Agencies may view the case as tacit confirmation of current custodial-interview protocols.
• Trial Management: Trial courts receive quiet endorsement for pragmatic evidentiary tailoring—allowing necessary context (e.g., weapon reports) while excising surplus prejudice. The order provides practitioners a blueprint for crafting or attacking such balances.
• Persuasive Authority Status: Though not precedential under 2d Cir. Local R. 32.1.1, summary orders can still be cited for their reasoning; litigants may rely on Martin as persuasive authority, particularly alongside the controlling Zherka opinion.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge: A facial challenge claims the statute is unconstitutional in all applications; an as-applied challenge targets the law’s operation on the particular person or facts of a case.
• Miranda Waiver: A suspect must knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily give up the right to remain silent and to an attorney. A written waiver is strong (but not conclusive) evidence of voluntariness.
• Plain-Error Review: When a party fails to object at trial, an appellate court will correct only errors that are clear, affect substantial rights, and seriously impugn the fairness or integrity of proceedings.
• Rule 403 Balancing: Even relevant evidence can be excluded if its unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its helpfulness to the jury. Courts weigh probative value against dangers such as inflaming emotions or confusing issues.
• Rule 608(b) Impeachment: Allows cross-examining a witness about specific instances of untruthful conduct to attack credibility, but extrinsic proof (documents, other witnesses) is barred.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Martin is a concise but instructive reaffirmation of three legal propositions:

1. Standard Miranda voluntariness doctrine remains robust, with courts scrutinising actual coercion rather than defendant health alone.
2. The Second Circuit’s precedential decision in Zherka v. Bondi forecloses most contemporary Second Amendment attacks on § 922(g)(1), even for non-violent felons.
3. District judges retain wide discretion under Rules 401, 403, and 608 in shaping the evidentiary landscape, provided they conduct careful balancing and adopt limiting measures.

Although issued as a non-precedential summary order, Martin illustrates how settled circuit law efficiently disposes of recurrent arguments, thereby contributing—at least persuasively—to federal firearm jurisprudence and evidentiary practice.