Latest Case: United States v. Jeffries (Criminal Law)

Department of Justice Once Again Proves Its Loyalty to the President, Not the Rule of Law

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on the recent news that the Justice Department will seek dismissal of charges against Michael Flynn. Sarat suggests that because the decision does not seem to advance the fair administration of justice in this case, the court should take the unusual step of refusing to grant the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss.

Read More

United States v. Jeffries

Docket: 18-4081

Opinion Date: May 8, 2020

Judge: Batchelder

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Police officers discovered J.H. deceased in her home with drug paraphernalia and .58 grams of fentanyl. Text messages in J.H.’s cellphone indicated that she had attempted to buy or had bought drugs from Jeffries earlier that day. Officers, impersonating J.H., texted Jeffries and requested more drugs. Jeffries went to J.H.’s home. A search of Jeffries’s car revealed 1.69 grams of fentanyl and a cellphone containing J.H.'s text messages. In Jeffries’s pocket, the officers found $446 and 36.14 grams of fentanyl. Jeffries was charged with possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute and distributing fentanyl, the use of which resulted in death, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). Two medical experts testified that the amount of fentanyl in J.H.’s system was “significantly above the lethal level” and that no other “anatomical issues” could have caused J.H.’s death. Jeffries asked the court to instruct the jury that, to impose section 841(b)(1)(C)’s sentencing enhancement, the government was required to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of J.H. was the natural and foreseeable result of the defendant’s actions.” The instructed the jury that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that but for the use of the drugs that Jeffries distributed, J.H. would not have died; there is “but for” causation where use of the drugs, combined with other factors to produce death and death would not have occurred without the incremental effect of the drugs. After the jury convicted Jeffries, the court held that it had erred by failing to include the proximate-cause jury instruction and granted a new trial. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for sentencing. Section 841(b)(1)(C) requires proof of only but-for causation.