United States v. McFadden
15 F. Supp. 3d 668
W.D. Va.2013Background
- McFadden charged in a nine-count superseding indictment in the Western District of Virginia (Nov. 14, 2012).
- Counts 1–4 allege conspiracy and distribution of controlled substance analogues for human consumption; Counts 2–9 allege distribution of analogues.
- Substances at issue: methylone (MDMC), MDPV, and 4-MEC, alleged analogues under the Analogue Act.
- McFadden’s co-defendant Lois McDaniel sold bath salts; investigation traced supply to McFadden; Feb. 15, 2012 search of McFadden’s Staten Island office recovered bath salts and related items.
- Jury found McFadden guilty on all counts on Jan. 10, 2013; he moved for judgment of acquittal challenging the Analogue Act, jury instructions, expert testimony, and sufficiency of the evidence; court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality/vagueness of the Analogue Act as applied | McFadden contends Act is vague as applied | McFadden argues lack of notice and vague terms | Not unconstitutional/vague as applied |
| Adequacy of jury instructions on conspiracy and analogue elements | Instructions insufficient to require specific analogical proof | Court's instructions align with Klecker and statute | Instructions were proper and not error |
| Admissibility of expert animal-studies testimony | Dr. Prioleau’s animal data should be excluded | Testimony reliable under Rule 702/Daubert | Testimony properly admitted; weight to be assessed by jury |
| Sufficiency of the evidence that analogues have substantial similarity or effects | Evidence insufficient to show substantial similarity/effects | Evidence sufficient to prove substantial chemical and physiological similarity | Evidence sufficient to sustain convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Klecker, 348 F.3d 69 (4th Cir. 2003) (analysis of Analogue Act vagueness and requisite elements; intent constrains enforcement)
- United States v. Hofstatter, 8 F.3d 316 (6th Cir. 1993) (rejects vagueness challenge and discusses intent requirement under § 813)
- United States v. Fisher, 289 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2002) (no need for an explicit list of analogues; prevents endless cataloging of analogues)
- United States v. Desurra, 865 F.2d 651 (5th Cir. 1989) (analogues need not be known to be analogue; knowledge of possession and intent suffices)
- United States v. Turcotte, 405 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 2005) (discusses the conjunctive interpretation of § 802(32)(A) and related requirements)
- United States v. Day, 700 F.3d 713 (4th Cir. 2012) (undefined terms given ordinary meaning; supports vagueness analysis)