For a death-results sentence under the Controlled Substances Act, must a jury be instructed as to but-for cause if the evidence of causation is conflicting?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014), the Court settled a conflict over the meaning of the “death-results” language in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)-(b)) (Act). Rejecting a lesser standard of proof that the drugs distributed by a defendant need only have been a “contributing cause” of death, the Court required a higher test of “but-for” causation. Here, a jury found that a tenth of a gram of heroin supplied by the petitioner, Donald Harden, caused a person’s death. Based on the death-results provision of the Act, Harden was sentenced to life in prison. In his post-conviction proceeding, Harden argued that his counsel was ineffective by agreeing to a jury instruction with no mention of but-for causation. Since Burrage, the Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have required jury instructions that include the but-for test. Here, the Seventh Circuit did not. Though the Seventh Circuit recognized that the evidence of causation conflicted, and in fact was “weak,” it still held that a butfor instruction was unnecessary. This question is presented for review: For a death-results sentence under the Controlled Substances Act, must a jury be instructed as to but-for cause if the evidence of causation is conflicting? ii RELATED CASES Cases Related to Post-Conviction Proceedings Harden v. United States, No. 19-C-1503, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Judgment entered on December 31, 2019. Harden v. United States, No. 20-1154, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Judgment entered on January 21, 2021. Cases Related to Trial and Direct Appeal United States v. Harden, No. 1:16-cr-00035, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Sentence and judgment entered on February 6, 2017. United States v. Harden, No. 17-1270, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Judgment entered on June 20, 2018.