![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Seal_of_the_United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit.svg/640px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit.svg.png&w=640&q=50)
United States v. Olofson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States v. Olofson, 563 F.3d 652 (2009), is an appellate decision in the case of David Olofson, who was convicted by a jury of knowingly transferring a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Olofson was sentenced to thirty months in prison, which he began serving after his appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit failed. The US Supreme Court declined to hear a further appeal. Olofson's case was, for a time, a minor cause célèbre in conservative media and among gun rights advocates, attracting support from, among others, Lou Dobbs of CNN and from Oath Keepers, and legal assistance from Gun Owners of America.[1][2][3][4]
This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (September 2023) |
Quick Facts US v. Olofson, Court ...
US v. Olofson | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit |
Full case name | United States of America v. David Olofson |
Argued | January 22 2009 |
Decided | May 01 2009 |
Citation | 563 F.3d 652; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 9433 |
Case history | |
Prior history | Guilty verdict on May 15, 2008, following jury trial in Case No. 06-CR-320 (E.D. Wis.) |
Subsequent history | Certiorari denied, October 13, 2009, in US Supreme Court, Case No. 09–256, David Olofson v. United States. |
Holding | |
Conviction affirmed. The defendant's proffered jury instruction was not a correct statement of the law, and the district court properly rejected it. Furthermore, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Olofson's conviction, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2) are not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of this case. In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion in either excluding the defendant's firearms expert from the courtroom during the government expert's testimony or in denying Olofson's motion to compel the production of evidence he had requested from the government. | |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Daniel Anthony Manion, Michael Stephen Kanne, and Virginia Mary Kendall |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Manion, joined by Kanne and Kendall |
Laws applied | |
18 U.S.C. § 922(o); 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2); 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b); Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 |
Close