United States v. Christopher Bereznak
20-1921
| 3rd Cir. | Jul 7, 2021Background
- Bereznak, a Pennsylvania-licensed dentist, met A.G. on Craigslist and — though she was not his patient — wrote nine prescriptions for controlled substances over ~6 weeks; A.G. later died of an overdose.
- A federal grand jury charged Bereznak with nine counts of unlawful distribution/dispensing of controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- At a seven-day trial, 999 text messages between Bereznak and A.G. were read into the record over Bereznak’s Fourth Amendment, authenticity, and hearsay objections; PDMP records documenting prescriptions were also admitted.
- The jury convicted Bereznak on eight of nine counts; the district court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of time served (≈8 months) plus three years supervised release.
- On appeal counsel filed an Anders brief; the Third Circuit independently reviewed the record, found no nonfrivolous issues, granted counsel’s withdrawal, and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Gov't Argument | Bereznak's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Federal courts have jurisdiction over §841 offenses | District court lacked arguable jurisdiction | Jurisdiction proper under 18 U.S.C. §3231; no meritorious challenge |
| Fourth Amendment — expectation of privacy in texts | Bereznak assumed risk by sending texts to a third party; no legitimate expectation of privacy | Texts seized from A.G.’s phone were product of an unlawful search and should be suppressed | No reasonable expectation of privacy in messages sent to another’s phone; suppression claim fails |
| Authentication of texts | Government met Rule 901’s slight prima facie burden (phone recovered near body, number tied to Bereznak, content references) | Messages could be inauthentic (phone unsecured) | Authentication sufficient for jury to weigh credibility; admissible |
| Hearsay — admissibility of text content | Bereznak’s messages are party admissions; A.G.’s messages offered only for context, not truth | Messages contain hearsay and should be excluded | Bereznak’s texts admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2); A.G.’s messages admissible as context/non-hearsay |
| PDMP evidence / state-law search concerns | Federal court applies federal law; no Fourth Amendment privacy interest in prescription records | PDMP search violated state law and Fourth Amendment | Federal law governs; no reasonable expectation of privacy in prescriptions; PDMP evidence admissible |
| Alleged inconsistent jury verdict | Inconsistency does not warrant reversal; jury may exercise lenity | Inconsistent acquittal on one count signals reversible error | Alleged inconsistency is not a basis for reversal; convictions stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standard for counsel withdrawal when appeal lacks arguable merit)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (definition of frivolousness)
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000) (counsel must identify issues even if frivolous in Anders context)
- United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2001) (local rule implementing Anders review requirements)
- United States v. Stearn, 597 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2010) (expectation of privacy analysis for electronic communications)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) (third-party doctrine — no legitimate expectation of privacy in information voluntarily conveyed)
- United States v. Turner, 718 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2013) (Rule 901 authentication standard is slight prima facie burden)
- United States v. Browne, 834 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 2016) (social-media messages admissible as party-opponent statements)
- Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339 (1981) (inconsistent jury verdicts do not require reversal)
- Wedgewood Village Pharmacy, Inc. v. United States, 421 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2005) (regulated industry and Fourth Amendment expectations in prescription records)