## Facts

- Brown supervised excavation work at a federal post office site within exclusive federal jurisdiction in Texas.
- Brown and Hermis had a hostile history, including alleged prior knife assaults and communicated threats that the next encounter would end in death.
- Anticipating trouble, Brown brought a pistol and placed it in his coat nearby.
- Hermis arrived to load earth; after a dispute about removing certain earth, Brown claimed Hermis advanced on him with a knife.
- Brown retreated about 20–25 feet to retrieve his pistol and fired four shots while Hermis was allegedly striking at him, killing Hermis.
- There was evidence the final shot was fired after Hermis fell; Brown testified the last shot was accidental.
- Brown was indicted and convicted of second-degree murder; the trial court instructed the jury that an assaulted person must retreat if retreat is safely available, and the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether federal self-defense law requires a person attacked with a deadly weapon to retreat if retreat can be safely accomplished, rather than stand ground and use deadly force.
2. Whether the trial court’s duty-to-retreat instructions improperly framed self-defense by requiring “detached” evaluation of escape possibilities during an imminent deadly attack.
3. Whether the Court should decide a challenge to the indictment’s jurisdictional allegations when reversal is warranted on instructional error.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the conviction.
- The Court held the jury instructions were erroneous insofar as they imposed a general duty to retreat measured by what a prudent person might think possible in the moment.
- The Court concluded the self-defense issue remained for the jury even with evidence about a possible final shot after the victim fell, because the jury could still find the killing occurred in the heat of an encounter perceived as life-threatening.
- The Court declined to resolve the indictment/jurisdiction sufficiency question because reversal was required on the self-defense instruction issue.

## Legal Principles

- Under federal law, a person who reasonably believes he faces immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from an assailant with a deadly weapon may stand his ground and use deadly force in self-defense.
- Self-defense does not depend on an after-the-fact inquiry into whether a reasonable person could have retreated or used lesser force; the law does not demand detached reflection during an imminent deadly assault.
- Evidence arguably suggesting excessive force at the end of a confrontation does not automatically remove self-defense from the case; the jury may still consider whether the defendant acted under an immediate perceived threat.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed Brown’s murder conviction because the jury was improperly instructed that he had a duty to retreat if safe flight seemed possible; the correct federal rule permits standing one’s ground when the defendant reasonably believes he faces immediate deadly danger.


Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921)