The Overdose/Homicide Epidemic

This Article explores the lack of regulation of coroners, concerns within the forensic science community on the reliability of coroner determinations, and ultimately, how elected laypeople serving as coroners may influence the rise in drug-induced homicide prosecutions in the midst of the opioid epidemic. This Article proposes that the manner of death determination contributes to overdoses being differently prosecuted; that coroners in rural counties are more likely to determine the manner of death for an illicit substance overdose is homicide; and that coroners are provided with insufficient training on interacting with the criminal justice system, particularly on overdose deaths. Death investigations as a whole are not the impartial, scientific endeavors they are portrayed to be; instead, they can be deeply influenced by law enforcement and prosecutors, with medical examiners and coroners serving as part of the “investigative team.” Just as research has demonstrated that forensic analysts working in police-controlled crime labs can be influenced by a team mentality to find evidence supporting a prosecution, such a mentality can likewise be found in death investigations. The lack of impartiality leading to a death certificate or autopsy determination is, however, rarely exposed. In drug induced homicides, a confluence of a robust system of mass incarceration, political motives, and a wide-sweeping public health crisis lead to incarceration for drug abuse whether or not it is legally supported

Drug-Induced Homicide: Challenges and Strategies in Criminal Defense

Nearing the end of its second decade, the crisis of fatal opioid-involved overdoses in the United States has gone from bad to worse. In 2017, approximately 72,000 people died of a drug overdose in the United States. Overdose is now the leading cause of death for people under fifty. There is broad agreement that reducing opioid overdose deaths requires wider distribution of the opioid antidote naloxone, rapid scale-up in evidence-based treatment, and reducing the stigma associated with substance use and addiction. However, progress on these and other vital public health interventions remains abysmally slow. Meanwhile, there is a new and growing trend in enforcing drug-induced homicide and similar laws in overdose death cases. Originally intended to implicate dealers in accidental drug overdoses, such charges were rarely brought until recent years. Just since 2010, however, media coverage of prosecutions based on such provisions has spiked at least threefold, from 363 in 2011 to 1,178 in 2016

The Overdose/Homicide Epidemic

This Article explores the lack of regulation of coroners, concerns within the forensic science community on the reliability of coroner determinations, and ultimately, how elected laypeople serving as coroners may influence the rise in drug-induced homicide prosecutions in the midst of the opioid epidemic. This Article proposes that the manner of death determination contributes to overdoses being differently prosecuted; that coroners in rural counties are more likely to determine the manner of death for an illicit substance overdose is homicide; and that coroners are provided with insufficient training on interacting with the criminal justice system, particularly on overdose deaths. Death investigations as a whole are not the impartial, scientific endeavors they are portrayed to be; instead, they can be deeply influenced by law enforcement and prosecutors, with medical examiners and coroners serving as part of the “investigative team.” Just as research has demonstrated that forensic analysts working in police-controlled crime labs can be influenced by a team mentality to find evidence supporting a prosecution, such a mentality can likewise be found in death investigations. The lack of impartiality leading to a death certificate or autopsy determination is, however, rarely exposed. In drug induced homicides, a confluence of a robust system of mass incarceration, political motives, and a wide-sweeping public health crisis lead to incarceration for drug abuse whether or not it is legally supported

Judicial Dismissal in the Interest of Justice

Of the 1.6 million Americans in prison, most inmates are serving sentences for non-violent offenses. Who is responsible? Hyper-incarceration is not simply due to outdated drug laws or stringent sentencing. Courts in the last thirty years have taken a lackadaisical back seat. Prosecutors are failing in their gate-keeping function nationally. Most simple arrests are prosecuted without even evaluating the substance of the case. Police stops can snowball into convictions through our plea system. In short, the criminal justice system provides no systemic accountability for its own results. This Article focuses on this lack of accountability and proposes a conceptual shift, as well as a practical solution: pivoting accountability to the courts. Twelve states recognize the capacity of judges to dismiss cases in the interest of justice. Dismissal in the interest of justice allows a court to dismiss a procedurally proper, but unjust or unjustifiable, cause of action. Thus, dismissing cases in the interest of justice can provide a check where few exist for overzealous prosecutions, race-based patrolling, and overuse of “three strikes” laws. In addition, dismissals can require more consistency and reliability in evidence and in state prosecutions, whether on the misdemeanor or felony level. And ultimately all states can create this capacity through state laws and state rules of criminal procedure. Transforming our prison paradigm moves beyond shifting individual laws; court-initiated dismissals can address the underlying problem of accountability. By finding a practical application already in use by some states, this Article creates a useful framework for both ends of the spectrum: conceptually reforming our system while practically assisting individual cases and lives

The Overdose/Homicide Epidemic

This Article explores the lack of regulation of coroners, concerns within the forensic science community on the reliability of coroner determinations, and ultimately, how elected laypeople serving as coroners may influence the rise in drug-induced homicide prosecutions in the midst of the opioid epidemic. This Article proposes that the manner of death determination contributes to overdoses being differently prosecuted; that coroners in rural counties are more likely to determine the manner of death for an illicit substance overdose is homicide; and that coroners are provided with insufficient training on interacting with the criminal justice system, particularly on overdose deaths. Death investigations as a whole are not the impartial, scientific endeavors they are portrayed to be; instead, they can be deeply influenced by law enforcement and prosecutors, with medical examiners and coroners serving as part of the “investigative team.” Just as research has demonstrated that forensic analysts working in police-controlled crime labs can be influenced by a team mentality to find evidence supporting a prosecution, such a mentality can likewise be found in death investigations. The lack of impartiality leading to a death certificate or autopsy determination is, however, rarely exposed. In drug induced homicides, a confluence of a robust system of mass incarceration, political motives, and a wide-sweeping public health crisis lead to incarceration for drug abuse whether or not it is legally supported