Dissent U.S. v. Bradley
Case Facts
Bradley, a law officer and his partner, are on patrol when they notice a vehicle disregarding a stop sign. The driver of the vehicle does not stop since the vehicle the two officers are driving is not easily identifiable as a police vehicle. Marshall the driver of the vehicle does not stop which prompts Bradley to fire twice at Marshall who stops after the second shot. Bradley is charged and a jury finds him guilty of willfully depriving a person of constitutional rights under color of law. The District court however grants Bradley a downward departure. The judge however appeals the downward motion while Bradley appeals the conviction. The circuit judge reaffirms the conviction based on the opinion that the downward motion holds no ground.
Elements of the Crime That Are Most Vulnerable To Arguing the Other Side
The conviction based on the Fourth Amendment is null and void since the incidence does not involve a search and seizure procedure. Arguing on the parameter hence is debatable. Bradley suffered stress according to a psychological report presented in the case. Argument that he acted willfully by shooting at Marshall and almost killing him is equally debatable. Based on his impeccable reputation over the years, Bradley shooting at Marshall is not willful and could be attributed to his psychological state at the time. In relation to his reputation a downward departure sentencing is fair judgment contrary to the government argument of a conviction based on the Fourth Amendment rights. The decision to affirm Bradley’s conviction and remand the case for resentencing is therefore not fair judgment.
His shooting at Marshall though lawfully debatable could be argued on different parameters. Marshall defied stop orders despite the chase and the first warning shot which automatically invoked a risk factor to the officers. Officer Bradley did not thus act willfully. It is important to note that Bradley on returning to the station did not make a firearm discharge report. It therefore means that basing the case on the Fourth Amendment is highly debatable as opposed to argument on the basis of his action at the station. His action could be attributed to stress hence his psychological condition is pertinent in the case.
Conclusion
Bradley is an officer with an impeccable reputation hence could not have carried out the shooting willfully. His great work ethic as recounted by various individuals is indicative of the fact that he could not deliberately harm a civilian. A downward departure motion is therefore the preferred outcome. The judge’s affirmation of the conviction was not fair judgment based on Bradley’s aberrant behavior. The conclusion that the sentencing based on behavior did not address pertinent information is thus debatable.