Castillo v. United States

Documents Relating to the Case June 5, 2000: The Supreme Court issues its opinion, ruling in favor of the Waco survivors (Summary of the Opinion; Full Opinion; Audio of Opinion) April 24, 2000: Oral Argument before the Supreme Court of the U.S. April 17, 2000: New Reply Brief for the Petitioners filed in the Court January 14, 2000: the U.S. Supreme Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari to review the 30-year sentences of Jaime Castillo and four other defendants who were prosecuted after escaping from the fire which consumed the Branch Davidian building complex near Waco, Texas, on May 19, 1993 (Some 76 babies, children, women, and men perished that day). Brief for the Petitioners filed December 27, 1999: Reply Brief for the Petitioners filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on December 27, 1999 October 15, 1999: Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court

On April 24, 2000, Stephen P. Halbrook argued in the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of Jaime Castillo, Brad Branch, Renos Avraam, Graeme Craddock, and Kevin Whitecliff, petitioners who were convicted of unlawful use of firearms arising out of the 1993 tragedy at Waco, Texas. The issue was whether certain firearm types, as defined in the federal Gun Control Act, are elements of offenses that must be alleged in the indictment and decided by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or are sentencing factors that may be determined by the judge by a preponderance of evidence. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. A link to the opinion, Castillo v. United states,_U.S._, 120 S. Ct. 2090, 147 L. Ed. 2d 94 (2000), follows below:

This case arose out of the tragedy that took place near Waco, Texas, on February 28, 1993, involving a raid by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms on the residence of the Branch Davidians. The jury acquitted the defendants of all murder charges. Defendants were convicted of, inter alia, using firearms in a federal crime of violence, although they were acquitted of the predicate offense.

This Court vacated the thirty-year sentence for the firearm charge and remanded for resentencing. Pursuant to the remand, defendants have been resentenced to thirty years for this offense, under the theory that the use of an enhanced weapon may be found by the sentencing judge, and need not be alleged in the indictment or found by the jury. In other circuits, the type of weapon is considered an element of the offense, and a defendant would receive only five years for the offense under which defendants here stand convicted. In addition, although the jury acquitted defendants of using firearms under the Pinkerton instruction, the district judge has sentenced defendants as if each is responsible for the acts of the others.

Serious issues arise concerning constitutional law, statutory construction, and the sufficiency of evidence. Counsel is equipped to assist the Court in reviewing these issues. Oral argument would be beneficial to the Court in this case.

Stephen P. Halbrook served as counsel for Jaime Castillo.