Today’s Judge Trevor McFadden decision yesterday is in effect U.S. v. Cudd:
Jenny Cudd seeks to change the Court’s ruling against her, which denied her the right of possession while she was under supervision. An order limiting the rights to own a firearm while on probation is not mandatory, but a discretionary one. See 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b). “The Court can only impose discretionary conditions if they are reasonably related with the factors in section 3553 (a)(1) and a)(2), and if such conditions do not involve any deprivations to liberty or property reasonably necessary for the purposes of section 3553 (a)(2).”
Cudd contends the restriction on firearms is unrelated to her nonviolent conviction for misdemeanor. Cudd asserts that she was threatened to play a role at the Capitol January 6, 2016, and requires a weapon for self-defense.
The Government objects to the motion. This is because the Government believes that the condition of supervision must be related to the fact that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the crime, promote respect for laws, provide justice for the office, as well as the requirement to impose a sentence sufficient to deter criminal behavior. Cudd is described by the Government as a court of violence. The Government reveals that Cudd wore a bulletproof sweatshirt from the Capitol. She knew police were pepper spraying rioters and she continued to enter the building.
Cudd’s statements are also cited by the government, which includes:[W]”When Pence betrayed our country was when we decided that to storm the Capitol,”; “I’m proud for everything I was a part in today,”; and “Yes I would definitely do it again.” Cudd’s bulletproof sweatshirt and these statements are said to indicate violence by the government. The Government claims Cudd may be dangerous to her probation officers if she is found with a firearm.
However, the government did not provide any evidence to suggest that Cudd incited violence. It also did not show evidence of her involvement in violence. Her criminal record is not hers. Cudd’s bulletproof sweatshirt shows her concern about being attacked during the rally that preceded her entrance to the Capitol. It does not say anything about her risk to other people.
Cudd claims she was threatened and that she needs protection. The harassment Cudd faced was acknowledged by the Court as well as the Government at her sentencing. The Second Amendment rights include the inherent right to self-defense. D.C. v. Heller (2008). The Court will not limit that right for a nonviolent misdemeanant who credibly fears for her safety….
Cuddy had been convicted of 18 U.S. Code § 1752(a)(1), “knowingly enter[ing]Continue reading[ing]in any restricted structure or grounds, without the lawful authority.” and was sentenced with a $5000 penalty and two months of probation.
We are very proud of Marina Medvin (Cuddy’s attorney) for her win on this point.