Bailey v. United States
- Decided
- December 6, 1995
- Docket
- 94-7448
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,526 timesSuperseded by statute (verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute, superseded on other grounds (7 of 46 verified; none is a verified overruling) · Magdaleno v. United States
What later courts said
- holding that the language “use and carry” in § 924(c)(1) requires active employment of a firearm — United States v. Michael Gerald Gamboa (2006)
- holding that the word "use" in § 924(c) requires the government to show "active employment” of a firearm — United States v. Thomas Masotto (1996)
- holding that the Government must show “active employment” of a gun to prove “use” within the meaning of § 924(c) — United States v. Darnell A. Catlett (1996)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
These consolidated petitions each challenge a conviction under 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1). In relevant part, that section imposes a 5-year minimum term of imprisonment upon a person who “during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime . . . uses or carries a firearm.” We are asked to decide whether evidence of the proximity and accessibility of a firearm to drugs or drug proceeds is alone [*139] sufficient to support a conviction for “use” of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense under 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1).
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.