Does Criminal Law Matter? Thoughts on Dean v. United States and Flores-Figueroa v. United States

Twice last year the Supreme Court interpreted criminal statutes that were silent or ambiguous about the culpable mental state associated with a particular objective element.In the first case, Dean v. United States,' the statute at issue was 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), which defines an aggravated version of the offense of carrying a firearm during a federal crime of violence.2 This section requires the government to prove that the defendant's firearm was "discharged" during the crime of violence.3 But it does not make any mention of a mental state associated with the discharge element.4 In Dean, the defendant's firearm appeared to have discharged accidentally.5 And so the question arose whether the government was required to prove a mental state with respect to the discharge, and if so which one.The defendant argued that the government was required to prove that he had * Professor,