How We Helped Overturn a Federal Drug Conviction on Appeal

How We Helped Overturn a Federal Drug Conviction on Appeal

Winning a federal drug case on appeal is tough. Like, really tough. The government doesn’t like to lose, ya know? But every once in a while, with some creative lawyering—and a little luck—it can be done.

That’s what happened with our recent case, U.S. v. Smith (not the real name, obvs). Our client, let’s call him Joe, was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and sentenced to 10 years in federal prison. It was a pretty by-the-book drug bust. Joe was caught on wiretaps talking to suspected co-conspirators about selling meth. DEA agents even seized a few pounds of meth from his home. Things looked pretty bleak.

But we weren’t about to let Joe spend the next decade of his life behind bars without putting up a fight. There were some holes in the government’s case, and we aimed to blow them wide open on appeal.

Our first line of attack was the wiretap evidence. The 4th Amendment requires the government to minimize intercepted communications that aren’t relevant to the investigation. But the DEA agents listened to and recorded tons of irrelevant stuff on Joe’s phone—like conversations between him and his grandma about her bunions. Not exactly pertinent to a drug investigation! We argued this violated Joe’s constitutional rights, and the evidence should have been suppressed suppression of evidence.

Next, we claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to support the drug quantity Joe was held responsible for at sentencing—a whopping 15 kilograms of meth. The government based this amount on vague testimony from a co-conspirator who flipped and got a sweet plea deal. The co-conspirator said Joe was a “big time” dealer who moved “a lot of meth.” Hardly specific enough to pin 15 kilos on someone testimony rules.

Finally, we argued Joe’s lawyer at trial was straight up ineffective—a violation of the 6th Amendment ineffective assistance. The lawyer didn’t challenge the wiretap evidence, botched the cross-examination of the co-conspirator, and didn’t even try to suppress the meth seized from Joe’s home despite no warrant. Amateur hour.

It was a nail-biter waiting for the appellate court’s decision. But then—sweet relief—the opinion came down in Joe’s favor. The court agreed the wiretap minimization was insufficient and the drug quantity estimate unreliable. It even criticized Joe’s trial lawyer for “multiple deficiencies.” Bam! His conviction and sentence were tossed out just like that.

We practically did a happy dance in the office that day. It’s not often the government has to eat crow like that. Joe and his family were thrilled too. Soon he’ll get to put this whole mess behind him and move on with his life. That’s what it’s all about.