Opinion ID: 4653353
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Conviction Events

Text: On direct appeal, Harden challenged (among other things) the suﬃciency of the evidence showing that his heroin was the but-for cause of Schnettler’s death and the adequacy of the instruction on causation. This Court rejected both challenges. United States v. Harden, 893 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2018). We acknowledged that the record contained evidence that Harden’s heroin was not potent enough to kill and that the defense had undermined the credibility of the witnesses who supported the government’s timeline. Id. at 447. But, we concluded, a jury could reasonably ﬁnd based on the evidence that Harden’s heroin reached Schnettler between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and that he overdosed on it shortly afterward. Id. at 446. We further held that Harden had waived his challenge to the instruction on causation by expressly agreeing to it. Id. at 450–51. Represented by new counsel, Harden has now moved for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that counsel was ineﬀective for agreeing to a death-results jury instruction that failed to adequately explain the government needed to prove Schnettler would not have died “but for” the heroin Harden distributed. He further faults trial counsel for failing to present expert testimony rebutting that the low amount of heroin (0.1 grams) was enough to cause Schnettler’s death. The district court denied his motion without an evidentiary 8 No. 20-1154 hearing. It ruled that the jury instruction accurately stated the law. Further, nothing showed that a jury could not understand that the “resulting from” language in the instruction required the heroin to be the but-for cause of Schnettler’s death. It also concluded his allegations oﬀered no reason to believe that an expert could have provided useful testimony.