explaining that “[tjhere can be little doubt that the instructions ... were plainly erroneous in light of Bailey ” when instruction permitted guilty verdict by finding mere possession of weapon that facilitated drug offense
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “[tjhere can be little doubt that the instructions ... were plainly erroneous in light of Bailey ” when instruction permitted guilty verdict by finding mere possession of weapon that facilitated drug offense
- stating that although the Cooke panel did not need to consider whether a weapon is “carried” if not within immediate reach, a brief discussion of the issue was warranted in light of statements made in Molina
- explaining that ineffective assistance claims rarely find any factual support in the trial record “and an adverse determination on direct appeal will be res judicata in any subsequent collateral attack”
- stating that the mere fact that the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to exclude two African-Americans, without more, is insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
COFFEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but I write separately because my colleagues’ opinions leave the unfortunate impression that the validity of this court’s very recent and very clear decision in United States v. Molina, 102 F.3d 928 (7th Cir.1996) is somehow in question. It was decided by a unanimous panel of this court, and it has neither been the subject of a petition for rehearing nor, as yet, an application for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Molina is the law of this circuit and should be considered binding precedent in cases raising the question of what constitutes “carrying” a weapon “in relation to” a drug trafficking offense. 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c).