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

Page 83

Drug Induced Homicide Defense Toolkit

trafficking on a large scale.257 DIH enforcement doesn't work, and if one of its goals is to reduce overdose deaths, it actually exacerbates the problem.258 A. DIH statutes purport to target major traffickers, but prosecutions target co-users and small-scale sellers Nationwide, legislative history tends to be quite clear: criminal penalties for drug distribution are intended to target traffickers and dealers to stop them from preying on youth and people suffering addiction. Take the example of Massachusetts. In his June 1980 letter to the legislature submitting “An Act Providing Mandatory Terms of Imprisonment for Major Drug Traffickers…”—which became the drug distribution statute currently enforced—then-Governor Edward King clearly identified the purpose and targets of the bill: The time has come to launch a new, more aggressive campaign against those who operate and profit from the death-dealing traffic in drugs. They should be the principal focus of law enforcement activities at the state and local level. We need major changes in the way our criminal system deals with these dealers in drugs.259 257

See LaSalle, An Overdose Death at 39.

258

This section is essentially an updated version of arguments made by the Health in Justice Action Lab and our co-author Lisa Newman-Polk in our amicus curiae brief in the case of Commonwealth v. Carrillo (2019), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3497098. For alternative rhetorical approaches, see our amicus curiae brief in U.S. v. Semler (coauthored with Scott Burris), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717117, and our sentencing memorandum in U.S. v. Cook, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717131. Please note that these latter two briefs do not raise race-based disparities because the defendants were white, and we did not want to inadvertently encourage the courts to attempt to level racial disparities in DIH enforcement by giving these defendants extra harsh sentences. 259

See Commonwealth v. Jackson, 464 Mass. 758 (2013), quoting 1980 House Doc. 6652, at 1 (emphasis added by the Court).

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

81


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.