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

Page 65

Drug Induced Homicide Defense Toolkit

The Seventh Circuit did not elaborate on the question of what it means for both users to have been “participants in the same transaction,” however, due to the posture of the case—a motion to vacate a guilty plea as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel.202 D. Arguing for a broad application of the joint-user rule based on distinguishing users from sellers A broad application of the joint-user rule is also supported by the policy goals of linking penalties to culpability while also distinguishing, to the extent possible, between users and people who are actively involved in the drug trade. These policy goals are inherent in the structure of drug laws and have sometimes been expressly stated by legislators. This was a motivating consideration in the court’s decision in Morrison: The Legislature stated that “it is the policy of this State to distinguish between drug offenders based on the seriousness of the offense, considering principally the nature, quantity and purity of the controlled substance involved, and the role of the actor in the overall drug distribution network.” . . . In passing the Act, the Legislature deemed the sentencing guidelines under the old drug laws inadequate in “identify[ing] the most serious offenders and offenses and [in] guard[ing] against sentencing disparity.” . . . The consequences of a finding of distribution are significantly greater than that of possession. Whereas the maximum term of imprisonment for distributing heroin that causes a person’s drug-induced death is twenty years, . . . the maximum term for possession of heroin is only five years 202

Weldon, 840 F.3d at 867 (first citing United States v. Swiderski, 548 F.2d 445, 448 (2nd Cir. 1977); then citing United States v. Speer, 30 F.3d 605, 608–09 (5th Cir. 1994)). As evidence that it is worth pursuing these arguments, and analogies like the one proposed in section IV, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court noted that had the facts at issue in the case been closer to those in Weldon, it would have been willing to revisit precedent in order to apply the joint possession doctrine. Commonwealth v. Carrillo, 131 N.E.3d 812 (Mass. 2019).

Version Date July 2021 – Check https://ssrn.com/abstract=3265510 for most current edition

63


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook

Articles inside

D. Secondary sources

26min
pages 120-144

c. Illinois

1min
page 119

b. Wisconsin

1min
page 118

a. Pennsylvania

3min
pages 116-117

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

4min
pages 110-113

F. The questionable strict liability approach

4min
pages 104-106

G. Better approaches to the overdose crisis

3min
pages 107-109

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

7min
pages 99-103

treatment

1min
page 98

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

6min
pages 94-97

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

10min
pages 87-93

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

5min
pages 83-86

3. Apps

2min
pages 80-81

1. Contents and metadata

2min
pages 75-76

E. Cell phone searches and Carpenter

1min
page 74

2. Location tracking

4min
pages 77-79

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

2min
pages 71-72

V. SENTENCING AND MITIGATION

2min
pages 67-68

acquisition requirement

1min
page 60

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

3min
pages 65-66

B. Application to drug-induced homicide prosecutions

4min
pages 53-55

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

8min
pages 45-50

a. The constructive possession doctrine

3min
pages 61-63

1. Decisions requiring physical presence

1min
page 57

C. Analyzing the simultaneous acquisition requirement

1min
page 56

2. Decisions not requiring physical presence

3min
pages 58-59

ii. Toxicology as a tool

3min
pages 42-44

2. Proximate causation and foreseeability

3min
pages 26-27

3. Intervening cause limitation

2min
pages 28-29

3. Consider the state official’s expertise

6min
pages 34-37

pathologist/medical examiner

1min
page 31

B. Challenging the scientific evidence

1min
page 30

“but-for” testimony

2min
pages 32-33

1. But-for causation

10min
pages 18-25

i. Autopsy as a tool

2min
pages 40-41
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.