⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Sixth Circuit hears Joshua Hallmon's appeal from convictions tied to a July twenty twenty crime spree in Tennessee. The crimes included two store robberies, kidnappings and carjackings; one victim was shot. A jury convicted Hallmon, and a federal judge sentenced him to forty-one years. He challenges the instructions used to hold him responsible for his accomplices' gun use. Aiding and abetting means intentionally helping a crime, which can make a person punishable as if he committed it himself. Section nine twenty-four C ordinarily sets an additional minimum of five years for firearm use during a violent crime, seven for brandishing and ten for discharge. Brandishing means displaying a gun, or making its presence known, to intimidate. Facts raising these minimums generally need jury findings. The dispute is what Hallmon had to know in advance. He will argue the jury needed to find advance knowledge that the gun would be brandished or fired. The government will argue that knowledge of an armed crime is enough. The parties also dispute whether the objection was preserved. Plain-error review requires, among other things, a clear or obvious mistake affecting substantial rights.

United States v. Joshua Hallmon (No. 24-6089) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, argued October 21, 2026.