Bousley v. United States

Background

Petitioner was a defendant who pleaded guilty in 1990 to methamphetamine distribution and to “using” a firearm during a drug crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). The District Court accepted the pleas, found a factual basis, and sentenced him to consecutive prison terms. Years later, this Court decided Bailey (1995) holding that “use” requires active employment of a firearm. The petitioner then sought collateral relief, arguing his plea was not knowing because the court had misinformed him about the crime’s elements.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s claim was procedurally defaulted because he did not raise it on direct appeal, but that he could still obtain review if he first shows cause and prejudice or that he is actually innocent. The Court said Teague’s retroactivity rule did not bar relying on Bailey because Bailey clarified the substantive meaning of the criminal statute. The Court remanded so the petitioner may try to show factual innocence as defined by Bailey; the Government may present admissible evidence in response.

Real world impact

The decision lets defendants who pleaded guilty under § 924(c)(1) after being misinformed about “use” attempt to reopen their cases by proving factual innocence. Courts may hold hearings and allow the Government to introduce new evidence of guilt. The ruling reverses the Court of Appeals and sends this case back for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s guidance about procedure and the scope of “use.”

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens agreed in part but said that because the plea is invalid the Government bears the burden to prove unlawful use on remand. Justice Scalia (joined by Thomas) dissented, warning the majority’s approach would flood courts and undermine finality for guilty pleas.