## Facts

- Christopher Stevens arranged by text message to sell heroin to a purchaser in East Lyme, Connecticut.
- Police found the purchaser dead in his car from an overdose; the heroin was laced with fentanyl. The purchaser’s three-year-old child was present but unharmed.
- Investigators linked the drugs to Stevens through text messages on the purchaser’s phone, and Stevens was arrested in July 2016.
- More than six months later, Stevens appeared in federal court to waive indictment and plead guilty to a one-count information charging distribution of heroin under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 841(b)(1)(C).
- The parties negotiated a plea agreement the court viewed as highly favorable to Stevens, and the agreement was reached without prior consultation with the victim’s surviving family.
- At the plea hearing, no family members were present, and the prosecutor could not confirm whether the family had been meaningfully consulted or whether they agreed with the plea’s essential terms.
- The court ordered the government to explain its compliance with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA); the government’s submission indicated the victim’s mother objected that the death was not expressly charged.

## Issues

1. Whether a district court should accept a guilty plea and plea agreement negotiated without adequate consultation with the victim’s surviving family, as required by the CVRA.
2. Whether, under Rule 11 and the court’s supervisory role over plea proceedings, failure to treat the victim’s family with fairness and respect warrants rejection of a plea agreement.

## Decision

- The court rejected the proposed guilty plea and plea agreement.
- The court found the government had not respected the rights and interests of the victim’s family during plea negotiations.
- The case was left to proceed without acceptance of the plea, permitting renewed negotiations or further proceedings consistent with victims’ rights obligations.

## Legal Principles

- The CVRA, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, grants crime victims rights that include reasonable notice, the right to confer with the government’s attorney, the right to be reasonably heard at specified proceedings, and the right to be treated with fairness and respect for dignity and privacy.
- A district court has authority under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 to accept or reject plea agreements and may consider whether plea proceedings comport with fairness and the public interest.
- While charging decisions rest with the executive, a court may refuse to approve a plea agreement when the government’s plea-bargaining process fails to account for statutory victims’ rights in a meaningful way.

## Conclusion

The court refused to accept a plea agreement resolving a fatal drug-distribution prosecution because prosecutors negotiated the disposition without adequate consultation with the victim’s family and without demonstrating compliance with the CVRA’s requirements of fairness, respect, and meaningful victim participation.


United States v. Stevens, 239 F. Supp. 3d 417 (D. Conn. 2017)