United States of America v. Aaric Murray

Clarksburg, West Virginia, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with multiple drug offenses and

one count of aiding and abetting the possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).



A federal grand jury in the Northern District of West Virginia indicted Murray and Johnson on several counts, including multiple drug charges. At issue here is Count Six of the indictment, charging one count of aiding and abetting the possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Specifically, Count Six alleged that Murray and Johnson, "aided and abetted by each other, did knowingly possess firearms described as a Glock pistol . . . and a Rossi revolver . . . in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime for which they may be prosecuted in a Court of the United States.” J.A. 35. The listed firearms were the two guns recovered from the green bag in the front room of the mobile home.



Murray and Johnson emphasize on appeal, as they did before the district court, the lack of direct evidence that they knew about the guns in the mobile home. Neither Murray nor Johnson admitted to knowing about the firearms, and no evidence was introduced that either spoke about the guns. No witness testified that Murray or Johnson purchased the firearms, brought them into the mobile home, or carried or handled the firearms. No fingerprint or DNA evidence connected either defendant to the firearms, and the government presented no evidence about any owners, past or present, of the firearms. The government also failed to preserve as evidence, and thus did not introduce at trial, either the green bag in which the firearms were found or the firearm holster observed on the table in the front room.



Murray contends that the evidence against him establishes only that he was present in the mobile home and cites United States v. Blue, 957 F.2d 106, 108 (4th Cir. 1992), to argue that his mere proximity to the firearms was insufficient to prove he knew of or exercised control over them. In Blue, 957 F.2d 106, the defendant, a passenger in a car, was arrested after a gun was found hidden under his seat. Id. at 107. We reversed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the evidence – which consisted only of the location of the gun and the testimony of a police officer that he had seen the defendant's shoulder "dip” as though he was reaching under the seat – was insufficient to find the defendant had constructively possessed the gun.

A jury convicted the Defendant.



Affirmed