Scott Weldon v. United States
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15626
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Weldon pleaded guilty to distributing an illegal drug resulting in a death (21 U.S.C. §§ 841); received an 8‑year sentence in exchange for cooperation.
- Underlying facts: Weldon, Andrea Fields, and David Roth pooled $120 to buy heroin; Weldon paid the dealer, returned with a small packaged amount, Fields stored it, they divided and injected it; Roth died.
- Fields was later tried and acquitted on the ground that her injecting Roth was not "distribution."
- Weldon moved to vacate his conviction claiming ineffective assistance: his lawyer repeatedly told him a distribution defense had no chance, inducing the guilty plea.
- District court denied the motion; Weldon appealed. The court examined whether counsel’s erroneous advice about the hopelessness of a distribution defense rendered representation constitutionally deficient and whether Weldon could show he likely would have insisted on trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by telling Weldon a distribution defense had no chance | Weldon: counsel misadvised him; Swiderski and related cases show joint purchase/share users are not distributors, so counsel’s insistence was deficient | Government: Swiderski inapplicable because Weldon alone performed the hand‑to‑hand purchase from the dealer | Court: Counsel’s repeated insistence was constitutionally deficient because precedent supports a viable defense that joint sharers are not distributors |
| Whether Weldon must show he likely would have gone to trial but for counsel’s errors | Weldon: would have insisted on trial or better plea negotiation if properly advised | Government: (implicit) plea was voluntary and strategic; no showing of prejudice | Court: Under Hill v. Lockhart, Weldon must show a reasonable probability he would have insisted on trial; he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine that probability |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Swiderski, 548 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1977) (individuals who jointly acquire a drug to share for personal use are not distributors)
- United States v. Layne, 192 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 1999) (approving Swiderski reasoning)
- United States v. Hardy, 895 F.2d 1331 (11th Cir. 1990) (approving Swiderski reasoning)
- United States v. Rush, 738 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1984) (approving Swiderski reasoning)
- United States v. Mancuso, 718 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2013) (discussing related distribution principles)
- United States v. Speer, 30 F.3d 605 (5th Cir. 1994) (similar treatment of joint acquisition/sharing scenario)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (standard for prejudice when ineffective assistance induces a guilty plea)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (plea negotiation and counsel’s duty to communicate offers)
- Kovacs v. United States, 744 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 2014) (discussing plea negotiation prejudice analysis)