noting that a "defendant raising ... affirmative defenses at trial presumably must bear the burden of going forward with evidence” to prove those defenses
How later courts described this case
- noting that a "defendant raising ... affirmative defenses at trial presumably must bear the burden of going forward with evidence” to prove those defenses
- Chief Judge Bazelon, concurring in part and dissenting in part
- separate opinion of Chief Judge Bazelon
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Limited by Marshall v. United States, 414 U.S. 417 (1974)
Because the two-prior-felony convictions in Watson were for violations of narcotics laws, there was some conjecture that the rationale of that ease was limited to its facts.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Gorham v. United States, 1975 D.C. App. LEXIS 374 (1975)
Watson, therefore, is distinguishable in that the statutes in question there are not directed at possession, per se, and in that the scheme of penalties imposable under those statutes is substantially different from those imposable for the crimes charged here.
The opinion
J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I agree with Judge Bazelon that the logic of today’s opinion leads clearly to the conclusion that the federal narcotics laws involved in this case do not *458 apply to nontrafficking narcotics addicts in possession only of narcotics for their own use. Since, however, all of appellant’s contentions save that regarding the insanity defense will be available to him on collateral attack, I join in Judge McGowan’s opinion because of the additional contributions it makes toward the resolution of the problem of treating drug addiction in a criminal context.