Whether a defendant's constitutional right to present an effective legally acceptable defense is violated when the district court wrongfully declines to give a buyer-seller instruction in a federal drug conspiracy case

QUESTION PRESENTED This case presents a clear example of a chronically problematic and important question of federal criminal law that is routinely decided by disparate circuit court standards. In every federal drug conspiracy prosecution the government must prove, as an element of the crime of conspiracy, an agreement to join the conspiracy. When the defendant is a remote buyer in a chain conspiracy, the agreement to buy the product (buy-sell agreement) is distinct from the essential agreement to join the conspiracy. Often the agreement to buy the product is promoted as proof of the agreement to join the conspiracy. Without clear and correct buyer-seller instructions that distinguish the two agreements, the defendant may be denied his due process right to present an effective defense. That happened here. Historic conflict exists amongst the circuits that should be settled by the Court. Is a defendant’s constitutional right to present an effective legally acceptable defense violated when the district court wrongfully declines to give a buyer-seller instruction in a federal drug conspiracy case because the defendant is not a drug user? ii