context: Some of our sister circuits appear to have recognized an innocent possession defense; however, we can find no case in which a circuit has squarely applied the innocent possession defense to a SS 922(g)(1) charge, where the elements of a justification defense are not present.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: declining to address whether the defense was available because defense counsel failed to seek a proper instruction on the innocent possession theory, but noting that its case law did not foreclose such a defense
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Ali, 63 F.3d 710, 716 n. 7 (8th Cir.1995) (declining to address whether the defense was available because defense counsel failed to seek a proper instruction on the innocent possession theory, but noting that its case law did not foreclose such a defense); United States v. Elder, 16 F.3d 733, 738 (7th Cir.1994) (concluding that although the innocent possession defense presented a “novel issue,” it need not decide the issue because the evidence did not support the defense); cf. United States v. Wolak, 923 F.2d 1193, 1198 (6th Cir.1991) (recognizing an “innocent possession defense,” though the defense in that case is more properly considered a “justification defense” as life and limb were arguably at stake).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 923 F.2d 1193, 1198
citation_b.parenthetical: recognizing an "innocent possession defense," though the defense in that case is more properly considered a "justification defense" as life and limb were arguably at stake
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Ali, 63 F.3d 710, 716 n. 7 (8th Cir.1995) (declining to address whether the defense was available because defense counsel failed to seek a proper instruction on the innocent possession theory, but noting that its case law did not foreclose such a defense); United States v. Elder, 16 F.3d 733, 738 (7th Cir.1994) (concluding that although the innocent possession defense presented a “novel issue,” it need not decide the issue because the evidence did not support the defense); cf. United States v. Wolak, 923 F.2d 1193, 1198 (6th Cir.1991) (recognizing an “innocent possession defense,” though the defense in that case is more properly considered a “justification defense” as life and limb were arguably at stake).