United States v. McLinn

Defendant Edward McLinn appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to state an offense under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B)(v). In 2013, Lawrence, Kansas, police officers responded to a call at a local gas station to find McLinn wandering the premises wrapped only in a shower curtain. The officers observed that McLinn had "chemical burns on his person, bloodshot eyes, and other minor injuries[,]" but when they initially asked McLinn about drug use he responded that he had used methamphetamine "approximately 3 1⁄2 years" earlier, and that his symptoms were the result of having been cleaning his house with heavy cleaners. McLinn was taken to the emergency room for treatment; staff stated McLinn exhibited "extreme psychosis with visual hallucinations . . . auditory hallucinations . . . [and] paranoia." A hospital employee ultimately requested McLinn be placed in protective custody and ordered to undergo mental health evaluation at Osawatomie State Hospital. Two days later, a state court held a hearing to determine whether there was probable cause to believe McLinn should have been involuntarily committed. The state court ordered McLinn be detained at the state hospital until trial, "but in no event later than 14 days from the filing of the application [for involuntary commitment].” McLinn was discharged less than a week after he had originally been admitted. As part of the discharge process, McLinn was required to sign a document which included language indicating he would violate the law if, as a person who had been involuntarily civilly committed to possess a firearm. Roughly a year later, a number of City Commissioners in Lawrence began to receive a series of bizarre emails referring to firearms. Police launched an investigation, found McLinn's public Instagram account, on which he had posted several photos of himself with firearms. Police then arrested McLinn and charged him with, among other offenses, possession of a firearm by an individual who has been adjudicated as a mental defective and committed to a mental institution. McLinn moved to dismiss this count of the indictment for failure to state an offense. The district court denied the motion "without prejudice." Following this adverse ruling, McLinn entered a conditional guilty plea to this count of the indictment, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The Tenth Circuit determined the district court mistakenly treated the dispositive issue in this case as a fact question properly reserved for the jury. The Court vacated the district court’s order and remanded for the district court to determine as a matter of law whether McLinn was: (1) adjudicated as a mental defective or (2) committed to any mental institution as those terms were used in 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). View "United States v. McLinn" on Justia Law