Drug-Induced Homicide Defense Toolkit, by Health in Justice Action Lab

Drug Induced Homicide Defense Toolkit

●

meaning of "delivery" was objectively unreasonable and, given that joint possession was in question, prejudiced defendant). People v. Moore, 2012 IL App (2d) 110711-U (discussing the one-act, one-crime rule which precludes the entry of both involuntary manslaughter and drug-induced homicide convictions because only one person was killed). Faircloth v. Sternes, 367 Ill. App. 3d 123, 853 N.E.2d 878 (2006) (holding that Illinois's DIH statute was not unconstitutionally vague when it failed to specify that it applied to drug traffickers and failed to specify the requisite mental state, and finding that punishment as a Class X felony did not violate the state constitution). People v. Boand, 362 Ill. App. 3d 106, 838 N.E.2d 367 (2005) (holding that Illinois's DIH statute was not unconstitutionally vague when it failed to specify the intended targets of prosecution, the requisite mental state, or the foreseeability of death). People v. Faircloth, 234 Ill. App. 3d 386, 599 N.E.2d 1356 (1992) (holding that the trial court did not err in refusing his requested jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of drug-induced homicide).

D. Secondary Sources

Advocacy Call on Drug-Induced Homicide Laws, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (Oct. 30, 2019), https://www.nacdl.org/Media/Advocacy-Call-on-Drug-Induced-Homicide-Laws (last accessed Apr. 28, 2021). Alex, Byron, et al., Death After Jail Release: Matching to Improve Care Delivery, 23 J. of Correctional Health Care 83 (Jan. 1, 2017), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1078345816685311?journalCode=jcxa Allen, Ben, No Standard Exists in PA to Accurately Track Heroin Overdose Deaths, WITF (Apr. 9, 2015). Allman, Carrie, et al., Humanizing the Client & the Cause: Effective Sentencing, Managing Media, & Engaging the Community, NACDL Defending Drug Overdose Homicides in Pennsylvania (Nov.

Drug-Induced Homicide Defense Toolkit, by Health in Justice Action Lab

Articles inside

D. Secondary sources

c. Illinois

b. Wisconsin

a. Pennsylvania

VIII. FINALTHOUGHTS: HUMANIZING THE DEFENDANTAND USING PERSON-AFFIRMING LANGUAGE

F. The questionable strict liability approach

G. Better approaches to the overdose crisis

E. DIH prosecutions do not reduce drug use or drug crime

treatment

C. Jail and prison actually increases the risk of overdose and death D. DIH prosecutions hinder law enforcement efforts to connect users with

B. DIH enforcement actually reduces help-seeking, thereby increasing the risk that people will die from overdose

A. DIH statutes purport to target major traffickers, but prosecutions target co-users and small-scale sellers

3. Apps

1. Contents and metadata

E. Cell phone searches and Carpenter

2. Location tracking

B. Denial of MOUD to inmates may violate the ADA or Rehabilitation Act

V. SENTENCING AND MITIGATION

acquisition requirement

D. Arguing for a broad application of the joint-user rule based on distinguishing users from sellers

B. Application to drug-induced homicide prosecutions

b. Query determination of manner of death as accident or homicide for evidence of bias

a. The constructive possession doctrine

1. Decisions requiring physical presence

C. Analyzing the simultaneous acquisition requirement

2. Decisions not requiring physical presence

ii. Toxicology as a tool

2. Proximate causation and foreseeability

3. Intervening cause limitation

3. Consider the state official’s expertise

pathologist/medical examiner

B. Challenging the scientific evidence

“but-for” testimony

1. But-for causation

i. Autopsy as a tool