In U.S. v. Zabawa, a federal inmate assaulted a law enforcement officer while in custody. The defendant appealed his resulting convictions. This opinion was released on June 3, 2013.
The assault occurred after a transfer from Wayne County Jail to the federal courthouse for sentencing. The defendant lunged at the officer and started punching him. The officer elbowed, kneed, and head-butted the defendant in response. In turn, the officer received a cut over his eye that required six stitches. The defendant was indicted and convicted of the assault under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and (b). However, under section b, the defendant must inflict the injury instead of just proximately causing it, and the officer admitted that the cut may have resulted from the head-butting. Yet, the district court found this distinction irrelevant. Due to various postponements, mostly caused by the defendant, a total of 70 months passed between his indictment and trial. After the bench trial, the defendant was sentenced to 222 months in prison.
Section 111 outlines three crimes. Simple assault is punishable by up to one year in prison. All other assaults are punishable by up to eight years in prison. However, if the defendant uses a dangerous weapon or inflicts bodily injury, the maximum penalty is up to 20 years in prison. So the appeal focused on whether the defendant inflicted the injury.
The term “inflict” is not defined in the statute. Looking at various dictionary definitions, the Court determined that “inflict” means something narrower than to merely cause something. More specifically, inflict means to directly cause harm by physical force. However, the government admitted that the officer may have directly physically caused the injury.
Court asserted eight years is a substantial term of imprisonment
The government argued that the Court’s interpretation of the word “inflict” would undermine the statute’s purpose of protecting officers from a wide variety of harmful conduct. Yet, the Court retorted that this is not what the statute actually states. In other words, the statute uses the word “inflict” instead of “cause.” Additionally, the Court asserted that eight years is a substantial term of imprisonment, as it is more than one year per stitch over the officer’s eye. The Court said that Congress intended to tighten the causal connection between action and injury due to the weighty potential punishment. Ultimately, the Court found the government proved felony assault beyond a reasonable doubt but not the enhanced penalty related to the laceration.
In addition, the defendant argued he was tried in violation of the Speedy Trial Act, which requires a trial to begin within 70 days of indictment. However, upon examination, the Court found that only 55 countable days elapsed between his first court appearance and the trial. Moreover, the defendant asserted he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. However, the Court determined that for various reasons the defendant was the cause of 48 months of postponements. Some examples include the defendant’s lawyer failing to arrange a competency evaluation and the defendant’s disruptive behavior in prison: going on a hunger strike, agreeing to postpone his trial 10 times, and more. Therefore, the Court found no Sixth Amendment violation.
In conclusion, the Court affirmed his assault conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and reversed under (b). The case was then remanded for further proceedings.
If you are seeking lawyers who will aggressively ensure that all of your loved one’s Constitutional rights are protected, contact The Kronzek Firm PLC.