United States v. Daniel Stanford
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9108
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2011 defendants operated a synthetic‑marijuana distribution scheme (product “Mr. Miyagi”) using AM‑2201 after JWH‑018 was banned; product labeled “not for human consumption.”
- Daniel Stanford, an attorney, joined industry efforts (RCA) and communicated with co‑conspirators; received substantial payments described as “RCA dues”/retainer and participated in meetings and police interactions.
- Stanford was indicted on multiple counts: Count One (conspiracy to distribute/possess with intent to distribute a controlled‑substance analogue), Count Two (misbranded drugs conspiracy), Count Three (money‑laundering conspiracy), and several §1957 money‑laundering counts. He was convicted on most counts after trial; a special interrogatory asked whether he knew AM‑2201 was a controlled‑substance analogue.
- After his trial but before appeal, the Supreme Court decided McFadden v. United States holding that the government must prove a defendant knew the substance was a controlled‑substance analogue (scienter element under the Analogue Act).
- The Fifth Circuit reversed Stanford’s Count One conviction based on McFadden error (failure to require/adequately instruct scienter), affirmed all other convictions and sentencing rulings, and remanded as needed.
Issues
| Issue | Stanford's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether knowledge that AM‑2201 was a controlled‑substance analogue is an element of Count One | Knowledge was required; district court erred by not requiring government to prove it | Government conceded likely error but argued any error was harmless because jury answered special interrogatory affirmatively | McFadden controls: knowledge is an element; district court erred and the error was not harmless as to Count One — conviction reversed |
| Whether submitting a special interrogatory cured the instructional error (and whether burden of proof was applied) | Interrogatory was separate, lacked beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt instruction, and jury may not have applied proper standard | Pointed to multiple reasonable‑doubt references elsewhere and the jury’s affirmative answer | Not harmless: omission of burden for the interrogatory and separation from Count One meant the jury’s finding is not equivalent to a beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt verdict |
| Whether denial of scienter instruction/pretrial ruling deprived Stanford of ability to present a complete defense | Stanford would have pursued different strategy (expert chemist, focused rebuttal) if aware scienter was an element | Court allowed some cross‑examination; special interrogatory put issue before jury | Error in treating scienter as non‑element was prejudicial; deprived full notice/strategy—not harmless; supports reversal on Count One |
| Sentencing challenges (drug equivalency, conversion ratio, guideline calculations, money‑laundering enhancements) | Stanford challenged THC equivalence, 1:167 ratio, start date, calculation method for §2S1.1, §1956 enhancement, and minor‑role denial | Government relied on precedent and record support; argued any guideline discretion errors harmless | Court affirmed sentencing rulings: THC as closest analogue and 1:167 ratio upheld under Malone; start date and §2S1.1 method/no‑notice arguments rejected; §1956 enhancement and denial of minor‑role credit sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015) (government must prove defendant knew the substance was a controlled‑substance analogue)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (omission of an element may be subject to harmless‑error review)
- Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (incorrect reasonable‑doubt instruction may be structural error)
- United States v. Dvorak, 617 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2010) (special interrogatory can cure missing‑element instruction where burden and context are proper)
- United States v. Cessa, 785 F.3d 165 (5th Cir. 2015) (harmless‑error standard and review of instructional errors)
- United States v. Malone, 809 F.3d 251 (5th Cir. 2015) (THC identified as closest listed analogue and 1:167 conversion addressed)