United States v. Harden, 893 F.3d 434

Background

On Sept. 5, 2014, Frederick Schnettler was found dead; autopsy concluded death from acute heroin intoxication (6‑MAM in urine, morphine in blood/urine).
Donald Harden was charged with conspiracy to distribute heroin; special verdict asked whether Schnettler died from heroin distributed by Harden and whether the conspiracy involved 100+ grams.
Government traced the heroin chain: Harden → Brandi Kniebes‑Larsen → Kyle Peterson → Schnettler; witnesses (Kniebes‑Larsen, Peterson, Alesia Nettekoven) provided timeline placing a delivery on Sept. 4 evening.
Defense contested timing, potency, and source (argued Schnettler may have used earlier weak heroin or obtained morphine/heroin from another source later that night); court excluded certain defense proffers about an alleged alternative source.
Jury convicted Harden under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (death results enhancement) and sentenced him to life; Harden appealed raising sufficiency of causation evidence, jury instruction/cause theory, exclusion of alternative‑source testimony, denial of mistrial after jurors saw a surveillance photo, and prosecutorial misstatements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (United States)	Defendant's Argument (Harden)	Held
Sufficiency of causation (but‑for)	Evidence (autopsy, 6‑MAM, witness chain and timeline) permits a rational jury to find Harden's heroin but‑for caused the death.	Government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Harden's heroin was the but‑for cause given timing uncertainty and other possible sources.	Affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, a reasonable jury could find but‑for causation.
Proximate causation requirement for §841(b) enhancement	Not required; statute's "results from" does not import proximate‑cause and circuits treat enhancement as strict liability for foreseeability.	Burrage and common‑law causation principles require proximate causation; Burrage left question open.	Affirmed: no proximate‑cause requirement; follows other circuits and statutory text.
Jury instructions on causation	Jury was properly instructed; defendant approved the instruction at trial.	District court failed to instruct adequately on but‑for and proximate causation.	Affirmed: claim waived because defense approved the instructions.
Exclusion of testimony about alternative heroin source	Excluding the proffered hearsay/low‑probative testimony was proper (relevance/Rule 403); any error harmless.	Exclusion deprived Harden of evidence suggesting another source of fatal drug.	Affirmed: exclusion within discretion; even if error, harmless given weak probative value and strong government proof.
Denial of mistrial for juror exposure to unauthenticated Walgreens photo	Any exposure was non‑prejudicial; photo ambiguous/time stamps unauthenticated and court reasonably denied mistrial.	Juror consideration of an exhibit not in evidence required a mistrial.	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; no reasonable possibility of prejudice.
Prosecutorial misstatements in closing	Remarks were minor/mischaracterizations; curative instructions and the weight of the evidence negate prejudice.	Prosecutor misstated testimony about warnings and source of Sept. 3 heroin; statements warrant new trial.	Affirmed: plain‑error review fails — misstatements not sufficiently prejudicial.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Moshiri, 858 F.3d 1077 (7th Cir. 2017) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence for prosecution)
Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (Supreme Court) (but‑for causation required where drug is not independently sufficient to cause death)
United States v. Burkholder, 816 F.3d 607 (10th Cir. 2016) (no proximate‑cause requirement for §841(b) enhancement)
Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (Supreme Court) (co‑conspirator liability limited to reasonably foreseeable acts)
United States v. Hatfield, 591 F.3d 945 (7th Cir. 2010) (discussion re: defining "results from" for juries)