The war on drugs: Making friends customers

R U mai fren or mai deelerz?

In another stirring strike for the war on drugs, the Second Circuit last week issued this impressive decision in U.S. v. Luna (but the appeal is really about some guy named Hawkins).

The facts go thusly: Hawkins wanted to buy some drugs from Luna, so he talked to him about buying 5 grams. That sale didn’t materialize. Then, one day, he called Luna and said that two kids from work wanted to get high, so could Luna please sell him some drugs? Luna did.

Five days later, Hawkins called Luna back and said, I know this white kid who’s got a $100 for an eight-ball, but he didn’t have the money, so he’d take the drugs from Luna, get the money from the white kid and bring the money back to Luna. The Court characterizes it as “drugs on credit”. This sale never materialized.

Fast forward to the trial and they are all convicted of conspiracy. Hawkins moves for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and Judge Stefan Underhill grants his motion.

The appellate court, in what seems to be a continuing display of wisdom, reversed. [This decision is not to be confused with the other gem from a few months ago, which makes it illegal to share drugs.]

They acknowledge that the buyer/seller relationship itself cannot constitute a conspiracy to distribute

however, where there is additional evidence showing an agreement to join together to accomplish an objective beyond the sale transaction, the evidence may support a finding that the parties intentionally participated in a conspiracy.

So Hawkins was essentially a “guy”. You know…I have a “guy”. Someone who does drugs and knows where to get you some from. He’s not a dealer, but he has a dealer. He’s the guy in college whose parties you went to because you knew there’d be some pot (or coke or meth..whatever, I’m not judging).

The Court acknowledges that there is no evidence of Hawkins intent with respect to the first transaction, so the entire conspiracy to distribute would be based on the evidence of the second transaction – the white kid whose money he would have to go get. Because if he was getting it on credit, it must mean that he was dealing. After all, it isn’t like “the white kid” could have called Hawkins and said “I want some, meet me here and I’ll give you the money”. The Court also seems taken by the fact that Hawkins programmed Luna’s number into his cell phone.

Right, because I remember every number ever told to me. And even if I could, why would I in this day and age? It’s called convenience, 2nd Circuit, not conspiracy to distribute.

So essentially, those of you who’ve ever bought some for a friend from a “guy” you know, you’re guilty of conspiracy to distribute. Enjoy those 15 years with the Feds.

This just goes to show that you should not do drugs. Not because they’re bad for you or because it’s morally wrong or something, but simply because the Government (and the Courts) don’t like you and will make you pay for it, even if they have to contort like Nastia Liukin to do so.