United States v. Waldrip
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10405
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Waldrip sold two 0.1-gram bags of heroin to Sweeney and Wilson; Sweeney used the heroin and later died.
- Waldrip was charged under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) for distribution; the government sought the § 841(b)(1)(C) enhancement because death resulted, which carries a 20-year mandatory minimum.
- At trial Waldrip stipulated that two government experts would testify that, but for the heroin taken immediately before death, Sweeney would not have died; those stipulations were read to the jury.
- Waldrip pled guilty to three undercover-distribution counts but went to trial on the count involving Sweeney; the jury convicted him on that count.
- At trial defense counsel explicitly declined to contest that the heroin caused Sweeney’s death and moved for acquittal only on the ground that Waldrip did not sell the heroin; the district court denied the Rule 29 motion.
- The district court sentenced Waldrip to 280 months (including the § 841(b)(1)(C) enhancement); Waldrip appealed raising arguments about but-for causation, vagueness of the statute, and Eighth Amendment proportionality.
Issues
| Issue | Waldrip's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/but-for causation | Evidence insufficient to show heroin was but-for cause of Sweeney's death | Waived at trial; stipulation to experts and counsel’s statements show intentional relinquishment | Waived; appellate review not permitted because defendant intentionally relinquished the argument |
| Vagueness of § 841(b)(1)(C) | Statute is unconstitutionally vague because it lacks mens rea for the death-results enhancement | Statute gives fair notice; enhancements for unintended consequences are common | Forfeited but reviewed for plain error; not unconstitutionally vague |
| Eighth Amendment proportionality | 280-month sentence grossly disproportionate | Sentence falls within ordinary limits; successful proportionality challenges are rare | Forfeited but reviewed for plain error; sentence not grossly disproportionate |
Key Cases Cited
- Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014) (but-for causation required when the drug is not independently sufficient to cause death)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (distinguishes waiver and forfeiture; waived claims extinguish error)
- Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568 (2009) (criminal liability may attach for unintended consequences of unlawful acts)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (void-for-vagueness standard for criminal statutes)
- Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980) (successful noncapital proportionality challenges are rare)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (upheld severe sentence in drug case against proportionality challenge)
- Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (1982) (upheld consecutive lengthy terms in drug case)
- United States v. Burns, 843 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2016) (waiver defined as intentional relinquishment)