Patrick ‘Tate’ Adamiak’s appeal was quick, inconclusive

Adamiak's appeal was heard Friday morning by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

By Lee Williams

Matthew Larosiere, the appellate attorney for Patrick “Tate” Adamiak, had only around 15 minutes to encapsulate all that was wrong with his client’s trial, conviction and subsequent 20-year prison sentence Friday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The three appellate judges—Judge G. Steven Agee, Judge Julius Ness Richardson and Judge Nicole Gina Berner—gave no clue as to what they will decide.

Judge Agee was nominated to the appellate court by former-President George W. Bush. President Donald Trump nominated Judge Richardson, and Joe Biden nominated Judge Berner.

Judges Agee and Richardson interrupted both sides constantly with their own questions, a procedure used in many appellate courts. Judge Berner did not say a word.

Larosiere began by informing the court of the vagueness of Adamiak’s charges.

“When an indictment leaves every substantive branch open, it is not justice. It is not lawful,” Larosiere said. “An indictment must inform the defendant what he must defend against.”

Judge Agee interrupted and asked Larosiere why he didn’t ask for a Bill of Particulars—a formal, written statement that a defendant can demand from prosecutors to obtain specific, detailed facts supporting each criminal charge.

Larosiere, who wasn’t Adamiak’s trial attorney, told the Court that many of the items Adamiak was found guilty of possessing were not in the statute.

“What language do you think should have been included? What were the words that were missing?” Judge Agee asked. “What are the literal words they didn’t put in?”

“Something in the indictment should put the defendant on notice to the factual basis of the charge,” Larosiere replied. “Every other case you’re charged with a machinegun, but it’s not what they did here. Mr. Adamiak did not have notice as to what he was being accused of. We still don’t know what they thought was a destructive device. The government didn’t say so in their reply.”

Larosiere said federal prosecutors left it all up to the jury to figure things out.

“All we know is that the jury was sent into the jury room with a pile of garbage—nonfunctional—and told to figure it out.,” Larosiere said. “This is not consistent with fair notice and due process. You have to know what you’re defending against. They refused to articulate any theory of criminality. The real question is if we’re going to allow the government to indict in entirety.

“Just like all the other cases, this was an X because of Y,” Larosiere said.

Assistant United States Attorney Jacqueline R. Bechara is an appellate attorney who represented the State. Like Larosiere, she did not attend Adamiak’s trial.

Bechara defended the federal prosecutors.

“I guess I can touch briefly on the notice issue,” she said. “The indictment provided sufficient notice. It was not unconstitutionally vague.”

“We’ve read your brief,” Judge Richardson told her.

During his rebuttal, Larosiere brought up the Second Amendment and how it should have protected Adamiak.

“These are not normal weapons. You don’t get to assert dangerous or unusual. There is a simple 2A question, whatever this is. There must have been accoutrements qualifying as arms. The government has the obligation of showing, regulating whatever it is. This has to turn on this case.”

“Is it your argument that they have to make a separate presentation to show the Second Amendment was not violated?” Judge Richardson asked.

“Yes,” Larosiere replied. “If the Second Amendment case was raised—if that’s where we’re heading—it becomes a critical problem that the government never addressed this.”

“Once you partially dissemble, if we pretend to take these apart, then in that world can you no longer be regulated?” Judge Agee asked.

“These were not taken apart. They were not weapons. They were parts, Second Amendment protected accoutrements. You have to show the history and tradition for locking a man up for 20 years, and they didn’t even try. You have to address arms before the court. What is before the court right now are not arms. It’s a pile of parts.”

Appellate judges usually take 30 to 60 days before releasing their decisions.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.