No. 20-6311

Russell Davis v. United States

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-11-13
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: accomplice-liability co-conspirator-liability controlled-substance controlled-substances criminal-law drug-distribution due-process enhanced-penalty pinkerton-liability sentencing
Latest Conference: 2021-01-08
Question Presented (from Petition)

I. Whether the government must satisfy the evidentiary requirements for accomplice
liability under 18 U.S.C. §2 or co-conspirator liability under Pinkerton v. United States, 328
U.S. 640 (1946) before a remote seller may be subjected to an enhanced penalty under 21
U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(C) for death or serious bodily injury resulting from a third-party's
distribution of a Schedule I or II controlled substance?

II. Whether an unforeseen and retroactive adoption of a new standard of strict
liability for determining eligibility for an enhanced penalty under 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(c)
violates a defendant's rights under the Due Process Clause?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the government must satisfy the evidentiary requirements for accomplice liability under 18 U.S.C. §2 or co-conspirator liability under Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) before a remote seller may be subjected to an enhanced penalty under 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(C) for death or serious bodily injury resulting from a third-party's distribution of a Schedule I or II controlled substance?

Docket Entries

2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-11-30
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-11-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 14, 2020)

Attorneys

Russell Davis
Dennis C. Belli — Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent