The federal district court found that since the body armor was made in another state, the Commerce Clause authorized Congress to regulate it. Following his conviction, Patton appealed.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court's Commerce Clause analysis. It also found that the district court properly disallowed Patton's necessity defense, that rival gang members were trying to kill him, because such danger was not imminent. See: United States v. Patton, 451 F.3d 615 (10th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 1247 (2007).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
United States v. Patton
|Cite||451 F.3d 615 (10th Cir. 2006)|
|Level||Court of Appeals|