While we have never been shy about speaking out against decisions of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that we don’t agree with, we are also quick to cheer the Court’s decisions that are favorable to law enforcement. This is the case today as we hail the decision of an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit. (What is an en banc panel? “En banc” is a French term used to refer to the hearing of a legal matter where all judges of a court hear the case, often used for unusually complex cases or those considered unusually significant.)

In 2003, three LAPD gang officers were driving past an apartment building known for criminal activity. The officers encountered three men and two women standing on the sidewalk. One officer asked the group what they were doing and one of the men answered "[N]othing." When the group was asked if anyone present lived in the building, one man responded, “It’s okay, we're out of here right now,” quickly turning and running down the center path of the apartment complex. Two officers followed him up the walkway and observed him turn left to grasp an apartment door handle. Seeing the officers in his wake, the man quickly let go of the door, crossed the walkway to another apartment and entered, closing and locking the door.

When the officers were able to get into the apartment, they found Earl Anthony Nevils, apparently asleep, a machine gun lying on his lap and a handgun leaning against his right leg, in clear view of the officers at the door. Later in court, Nevils defense was that he couldn't be held accountable for the weapons because he was unconscious after a day of drinking. In 2008, a divided three-judge panel accepted Nevils’ contention that the government failed to show he knowingly possessed the guns.

Nevils’ luck ran out with the Ninth Court ruling, when the en banc panel upheld his conviction. Reasoning that evidence against Nevils had to be construed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, despite Nevils’ “innocent explanation,” the 11-judge panel unanimously ruled that a rational juror could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Nevils knowingly possessed the weapons. Friday’s opinion by Judge Sandra S. Ikuta overturned the outrageous 2008 decision.

We applaud the opinion by Judge Ikuta and the other members of the Court who got it right: Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and Judges Pamela Ann Rymer, Sidney R. Thomas, Barry G. Silverman, Raymond C. Fisher, Ronald M. Gould, Richard C. Tallman, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Richard R. Clifton and Milan D. Smith Jr. Thank you, judges!

To read the entire decision, click here.