Related topics

Supreme Court To Study Carjack Law

April 27, 1998

WASHINGTON (AP) _ The Supreme Court today agreed to decide whether Congress left a gaping loophole in a federal carjacking law by studying the conviction of a New York man who says he never intended to seriously hurt the people whose cars he stole at gunpoint.

The justices said they will review Francois Holloway’s arguments that lower courts misread a federal anti-carjacking law by concluding it covers crimes committed with ``conditional intent″ to harm victims who refuse to comply with the robber’s demands.

Holloway was convicted and sentenced to over 50 years in prison for his part in a carjacking ring that sold parts from stolen vehicles dismantled in a Queens shop.

Prosecutors said Holloway, on several occasions in the fall of 1994, confronted motorists with a gun and demanded that they surrender their car keys. When one man hesitated, Holloway punched him in the face.

The federal law makes it a crime to take a motor vehicle by force ``with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm.″

The federal judge who presided over Holloway’s trial told jurors they could find such intent if they thought Holloway would have seriously hurt victims who did not comply with his demands. The jury then convicted him.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Holloway’s conviction, ruling that such a common-sense interpretation was valid despite the law’s somewhat ambiguous language.

In the appeal acted on today, Holloway argued that the appeals court’s ruling violated ``fundamental principles of statutory construction″ and his due-process rights.

The Supreme Court turned away two similar challenges last year, but had asked Justice Department lawyers to file a brief in response to Holloway’s arguments. That brief urged rejection of his appeal.

The justices today did not follow the government’s advice. The court’s decision in Holloway’s case is expected sometime in 1999.

The case is Holloway vs. U.S., 97-7164.

Update hourly