Unlawful Possession of Firearm

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Byron Pierson

Case No.: 21-3248

Officials: Sykes, Chief Judge, and Rovner and Kirsch, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Unlawful Possession of Firearm

Pierson appeals conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon asserting that the district court erred by not conducting a hearing to determine whether he knowingly and voluntarily waived specific rights when entering into a proffer agreement with the government. Additionally, he claimed that the court erred by permitting a witness to testify about the investigation leading to his arrest.

The incident originated with an Indianapolis Police Officer responding to a 911 call reporting Pierson’s threat to “come back and shoot the house up.” Upon obtaining Pierson’s criminal record and his car’s description, the officer returned to the woman’s home that evening, identified the described car, and initiated a traffic stop. Pierson, found in the back seat, hesitated when asked to exit and fled on foot upon a handcuff attempt. During the pursuit, officers noticed a firearm under Pierson’s body, later used as evidence.

Before trial, Pierson engaged in plea negotiations, signing a Proffer Letter waiving certain rights. After confessing firearm possession in two proffer sessions, Pierson withdrew his plea and opted for trial. He sought to exclude statements from the negotiations, arguing an uninformed and involuntary waiver of rights.

The Seventh Circuit determined that Pierson lacked evidentiary support for his claim of an unknowing and involuntary proffer agreement. Absent contrary evidence, the court deemed a hearing unnecessary, validating the proffer waiver. Moreover, since the government did not seek to introduce Pierson’s proffer statements at trial, any potential error in forgoing a hearing was deemed inconsequential.

Pierson also contended that the district court erred in admitting evidence about the investigation leading to his arrest. The Court of Appeals held that Pierson opened the door to such testimony in his opening statement by referencing a complaint from his ex-girlfriend. The district court’s decision to allow this testimony was within its discretion, and the jury received an immediate limiting instruction on its proper use.

Affirmed.

Decided 01/04/24

Full Text