Felony gun ban
Chappell v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Chappell asked the Supreme Court to review trial use of unidentified bystanders’ recorded statements without questioning them in court, denial of a hearing over alleged false statements in a warrant affidavit, and the Second Amendment challenge to the federal gun-possession ban for people convicted of felonies.
- Who it affects
- The denial ended Chappell’s request for Supreme Court review but did not settle the legal questions he raised.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.

What it's about
The Court refused to hear the case (denied the petition) and did not decide these issues.
The petition raised three separate legal questions involving trial evidence, search warrants, and gun rights.
Question presented
1. Whether statements that responding officers elicit from bystanders who are never identified, never produced, and never cross-examined, and that are captured on the officers’ body-worn cameras, are testimonial under the Confrontation Clause when the recordings are admitted at trial as substantive evidence of the defendant’s guilt. 2. Whether a court may deny a hearing under *Franks v. Delaware*, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and credit the untested remainder of a five-paragraph search-warrant affidavit as a basis for probable cause, without ever determining whether the affiant’s challenged statements were false or recklessly made. 3. Whether 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1), which permanently disarms every person convicted of a felony, is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.