Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Willie Riley Curry, Petitioner v. United States

No.

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term 2017

Willie Curry,

Petitioner,

V.

United States of America,

Respondent.

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The

United States Court of Appeals

For The Sixth Circuit

Petition for Certiorari

Willie Curry

Reg. No.

F.C.I. Hazelton

P.O. Box 5000

Bruceton Mills, WV., 26525

Questions Presented

The Fourth Amendment has continuously been applied

to cases like the one here. The Sixth Circuit

failed to follow that jurisprudence. Does Carpenter

and Byrd require a GVR in this case?

The Sixth Circuit acknowledged that the analyst who

tested the ostensible DNA did not testfify at

Curry's trial, but since Curry's trial counsel failed

to object plain-error applied. Does Rosales-Mireles

require a GVR?

This Court's recent decision in Montomery v. Louisiana

demonstrates the significance of "age to a criminal

offense. Curry was charged under 18 U.S.C. 1591, where

the Government was required to prove Curry "knew" the

age of the girls. The Government, however, knew that

it could not do so and instead sought refuge in § 1591(c)

which permits the Government to rely on a lower scienter

requirement even though it was not charged. Does such an

usurpation survive a due process challenge?

-1-

Table of Contents

Questions Presented

Table of Authorities

Opinion Below

Jurisdiction

-1-

Constitutional

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions involved

-2-

Statement of the Case

-2-

Reasons for granting the writ

-4-

Conclusion

-10-

Appendix-A

-11-

Table of Authorities

Builcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011)

5

Carpenter v. United States, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 3844 (2018)

4

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)

5

Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006)

5

Dennis v. United States, 341. U.S. 494 (1951)

6

Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016)

4

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009)

5

Montgomery

5

v. louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016)

Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952)

6

Patternson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977)

7

Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 3690(2018) 5

Sykes v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2276 ( 2011)

9

United Stateas v. Cordoba- Hincaple, 825 F. Supp. 485 (E.D.NY 1993) 7

United States v

Wilson, 159 F.3d 280 (7th Cir. 1998)

-111-

9

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term 2017.

Willie Curry.,

Petitioner,

V.

United States of America,

Respondent.

To the Chief Justice and Associate

Justices of The Supreme Court:

Willie Curry ("Curry"), acting without counsel respectfully

moves for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Sixth Circuit, and in support states:

Opinion[s] Below

The Sixth Circuit affirmed of Feb. 6, 2018, and rehearing,

with suggestions for rehearing en bane was denied April 11, 2018,

and both decision are attached as appendix-A

Jurisdiction

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)

Constitutional And Statutory Provisions Involved

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable

searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no

Warrants shall issue, but on probable cause.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution:

The right to due process, both pertaining to notice and

to have arbitrary laws enforced against him

l i-

mAr I-

Willie Curry was quitely fishing when he was approached by three

females that claimed to have just escaped from a local detent

ion

-

center, .and.akedthrry for assistance. While this was surly not

the

most intelligent action to be taken Curry offered the girls a

ride.

The events that subsequently occurred would forever, change Curry'

s

life and land him in federal prison for the greatest portion

of

his life.

Curry never contested that assisted the girls, only the

ostensible facts as they pertain to those girls. That is, Curry

vehemently contested any potential "rape" of these girls, and

any ostensible abuse that purportedly occurred. Relavant to

this

petition is whether law enforcement's use of cell-tower inform

ation

obtained without a warrant that was relied upon to place Curry

in

a particular location for purposes of obtaining a warrant offend

s

or deprives him of his rights under the Fourth Amendment in

light of recent developments from this Court.

-2-

Next, the facts were not disputed as to whether Curry actually

knew that the girls were under age at the time of ostensible

incident[s]. This was relevant because these girls did not come

to Curry on a clean slate, that is, they had just escaped from

a local detention center. For all that Curry knew they were

interm prostitutes that were arrested and placed in the center.

After all, the center is not to house the clean at heart. Then,

why the,' escape? They were by definition felons, on the run

from the authorities and just happened to come.across Curry.

At the trial, the Government called upon witnesses that claimed

to be involved in the testing of the purported DNA, but no party

could specifically tell the jury with definition that they were

the actual individual that tested the DNA that ostensibly belonged

to Curry.

Then, as mentioned above, the lack of the appropriate mens tea

permitted the Government to obtain a conviction on a theory of

strict liability, and theconviction[s] in this case specifically

draws against this Court's precedent that age is an element, and

that knowledge of that element is essential for a conviction of

this kind.

Finally, as argued in the Court below the Government's roaming

demonstrates that the indictment, as fashioned, constituted a

constructive amendment of the indictment.

-3-

Reason[s] for Granting the Writ

This Court recent decision in Carpenter v. United States, No.

16-402, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 3844 (June 22, 2018), calls for, at least,

a GVR for the Sixth Circuit to review the collection of celltower evidence without a warrant. There is no question., or any

facts to suggest that this recent ruling from the Court is not

on all-fours with the case here. The Government, in this case,

obtained cell phone records in order to place Curry in the

area of the ostensible location[s] where the purported conduct

took place. Without question this Court directly and without

ambiguity held that: "The Government's acquisition of Carpenter's

cell-site records was a Fourth Amendment search." Id. at *2.

Just as in Carpenter, the Government, in this case, tied Curry

to these preposterous actions by attempting to place him in

vicinity of the crimes. The Carpenter decision alone calls for

a vacatur to permit the Sixth Circuit to reevaluate his Fourth

Amendment raised below.

Next, as argued below, Curry's rights to confront witnesses

were plainly violated, that is, during the Government's case in

chief, a barrage of witnesses were called to substantiate the DNA

that was ostensibly Curry's. But, however, the actual analyst

that conducted the comparison did not testify. Was it not this

Court in Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016), that

found that a good rule of thumb for reading our decisions is that

-

what they say and what they mean are one in the same. In the

court below counsel argued under this Court's precedent that

Curry's confrontation rights that would have afforded him that

-4-

right were violated under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S.36,

68-69(2004); Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813,. 822 (2006);

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 310 (2009), and

Bulicoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), and that in the

absence of the actual analyst any scientific evidence would be

inadmissible during the trial. The Sixth Circuit panel: wholly

disregarded this precedent and found that under the plain error

standard Curry could not prevail. Recently, however, this Court

issued Rosales-Mireles v. United States, No. 16-9493, 2018 U.S.

LEXIS 3690 (June 18, 2018), where this Court specifically looked

to a court's integrity and public confidence in finding that

plain error had occurred, therefore, under Rosales-Mireles, the

Sixth Circuit's decision is flawed and the case must be GVR'd

under Rosales-Mireles.

Then, in the court below, it was argued that in the absence

of the correct sceinter under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, it was impossible

for Curry to defend the assertions made by the Government. The

issue was whether Curry knevt the age of the ostensible victim

s

and recklessly disregarded that knowledge. The Sixth Circuit

recognized that the indictment failed to provide Curry with the

correct statute

---

18 U.S.C. 1591(c)

---

which is supposedly a

lower scienter requirement. Apparently, the Sixth Circuit, and

perhaps appellate counsel failed to recognize is that this Court

recently decided Montomer.y; v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016)

,

where the Court held that age is a factor not to be shunned off

when the offender was not of development stage when the defend

ant

committed the crime. Here, however, the age scienter goes direc

tly

-5-

against the actus non facit reumnisi mens sit res.

The constitutional importance of the correct mens rea in

ensuring due process is rooted in the Western legal tradition and

in American founding principles. Dennis v. United States, 341

U.S. 494, 500 (1951)(observing that proof of mens rea "is the

rule of, 'rather than the exception to, the principles of AngloAmerican criminal jurisprudence"); see also Brian W. Walsh and

Tiffany M. Joslyn, Without Intent: How Congress is Eroding the

Criminal Intent Requirement in Federal Law at 5 (2010). "The

contention that an injury can amount to a crime only when

intentionally inflicted is no provincial or transcient notion. It

is as universal and persistent in mature systems of law as belief

in freedom of the human will and.a consequent ability and duty of

the normal individual to chose between good and evil." Morissette

v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 250 (1952).

In 1993, the Eastern District of New York described the

intellectual develoment of mens rea protections, from classical

philosophy to medieval law to William Blackstone to the Framers

of the American Constitution:

On either an historically based or a more fluid view of

the content of the due process clause, the mens rea

principle must be given constitutional effect. The

various doctrines of culpability encompassed by the

principle of mens rea are as deeply rooted as any

fundamental rules of law still operative today. As

already noted, the comcept of mens rea can be traced

to Plato and, since the Middle Ages, has been an

integral part of the fabric of the English common law

from which we have drawn our own criminal and

constitutional analysis. The legal framework against

which the Framers of the United States Constitution

operated included a strong committment to individual

blameworthiness as the chief determinant of criminal

liability. See Henry M. Hart, Jr., The Aims of the

Criminal Law, 23 Law & Cintemp. Probs. 401, 423

(1958)("In the tradition of Anglo-American law,

guilt of crimes are personal. The main body of the

criminal law, from the Constitution on down, makes

sense on no other assumption."); id. at 434 (it is

nonsensical to assume that "the views of Blackstone

----------------should -be- -- - cavalierlyove±rtde

ri 1 itepéti

a Constitution written by men who accepted his

pronouncements as something approaching gospel.").

United States v. Cordoba Hincaple, 825 F. Supp. 485, 515-15 (E.D.

-.-- ---

New

York 1993). The Sixth Circuit in this case found simply that it

could assume that the lesser scienter could be there and therefore

no error existed. Then in an absurd finding the Sixth Circuit

shifted to Curry the responsibility to argue at trial that he was

innocent of the knowlwdge element or the recklessly disregarded

the girls' age. Essentially, the Sixth Circuit has rested its

decision on strict liability because Curry did not prove the lack

of knowledge.

Curry did not shoulder any responsibility to demonstrate his

lack of knowledge as the Sixth Circuit suggests. It is a pillar

of the criminal law tradition that the burden to prove all

elements of an offense Use with the Government. Patterson v.

New York 432 U.S. 197, 215 (1977). Under the Sixth Circuit's

approach, this Court's precedent regarding a scienter befpre each.

element is mere fodder.

As part of a phenomemon labeled "overcriminalization," mens

rea requirements have been eroding in criminal law, and in the Sixth

Circuit and throughout the United States such actions are becoming

frequent. Erik Luna, The Overcriminalization Phenomenon, 54 Am.

IWA

703, 726 (2005). In the 109th Congress (extending from January 3,

2005 to January 2007), "over 57 percent of the offenses considered

contained inadequate mens rea requirements." See Walsh and

Joslyn, Without Intent, at 3-4. Several of the most prominaent

judges in the United States have critized this movement toward

statutes that are drafted withut adequate mens rea protections and

toward .a legal culture in which prosecutors increasingly.disregard

existing mens rea requirements.

In 2010, for example, prosecutors made virtually no effort to

prove that the defendant knew or should known that selecting a

particular method of accounting for reporting corporate figures to

stockholders was illegal. United States v. Goyal, 629 F.3d 912,

922 (9th Cir. 2010). The defendant's conviction was reversed on

appeal, and Judge Alex Kozinski wrote a blistering concurrence:

This case has consumed an inordinate amount, of

taxpayers resources, and has no doubt devastated

the defendant's personal and professional life....

This is just one of a string of recent cases in

which courts have found that federal prosecutors

overreached by trying to stretch criminal law

beyond its proper bounds., Criminal law should

clearly separate conduct that is criminal from

conduct that is legal

not only because of the

dire consequences of. a conviction

including

disenfranchishment, incarceration and even

deportation

but also, because criminal law

represents the community's sense of the type of

behavior that merits the moral condemnation of

society. When prosecutors have to stretch the

law or the evidence to secure a conviction, as

they did here, it can hardly besaid that such

moral judgment is warranted.

..

.

---

---

Id. at 922 (Kozinski, J., concurring).

Another prominent judge, Richard Posner, has argued that it is

unreasonable and unjust to expect that all citizens be knowledgeable

about the thousand of criminal laws now in existence. In 1998, for

example, a defendant argued that he did not know he was required

to relinquish a firearm after a restraining order had been filed

against him several years before, nor had he been notified of this

requirement by the court. See United States v. Wilson, 159 F.3d

280, 280-81 (7th Cir. 1998). He was nevertheless prosecuted and

convicted. See id. Justice Posner dissented:

We want people to. familiarize themselves with the

laws bearing on their activities. But a reasonable

opportunity doesn't mean being able to go to the

local law library and read Title 18. It would be

preposterous to suppose that someone from Wilson's

milieu is able to take advantage of such an

opportunity. If none of the conditions that make it

reasonable to dispense with proof of knowledge of

the law is present, then to intone "ignorance of the

law is no defense" is to condone a violation of

fundamental principles for the sake of a modest

economy in the administration of criminal justice.

Id. at 296 (Posner, J., dissenting).

Perhaps most predomently, Justice Antonin Scalia has critized

the trend towards overcriminalization and weakend mens rea requirements by writing that, "[i]t should be no surprise that as the

volume [of criminal laws] increases, so do the number of imprecise

laws. And no surprise that our indulgence of imprecisions that

violate the Constitution encourages imprecisions that violate the

Constitution." See Sykes v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2276, 2288

(2011)(Scalia, J., dissenting). "In the field of criminal law,

at least," Scalia continued in his dissent, "it is time to call

a halt." Id.

Therefore, this Court must step in and follow the late Justi

ce

Scalia, and put a halt to this type of conduct that came

from the

Sixth Circuit. This court should grant certiorari and vacat

e the

judgment and reverse with instructions to grant relief.

Conclusion

Certiorari is warranted in this case.

Filed this 2nd day of July 2018 under the penalty of perju

ry.

3AllWillie Cur y

-10-