Legal opinions have for a long time included discussion of grammar and its bearing on the interpretation of laws and of statements brought in as evidence.  A SCOTUS decision published yesterday provides an interesting example of this in an opinion written by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer with a critical response by Associate Justice Samuel Alito.  The legal issue is summarized nicely in Breyer’s opening paragraph, but the further discussion of the point of grammar and Alito’s response to that are good evidence of the importance of understanding grammar if one wishes to analyze a text.

Here’s Breyer’s opening paragraph:

A federal criminal statute forbidding “[a]ggravated identity theft” imposes a mandatory consecutive 2-year prison term upon individuals convicted of certain other crimes if, during (or in relation to) the commission of those other crimes, the offender “knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person.” 18 U. S. C. §1028A(a)(1) (emphasis added). The question is whether the statute requires the Government to show that the defendant knew that the “means of identification” he or she unlawfully transferred, possessed, or used, in fact, belonged to “another person.” We conclude that it does.

You can find the entire text of the opinion at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-108.pdf.

Herb