Pansing v. United States

The majority first holds, and I agree, that the trial judge erred in finding that Pansing was not a drug addict. By improperly ignoring expert testimony in making that finding, however, the trial judge erased any credible basis for the finding that underlies the judge’s, and the majority’s, second ruling: “that Pansing’s involvement in drug distribution was not for the primary purpose of supporting his addiction.” Ante at 1298. A failure to understand addiction in itself creates considerable doubt that the judge can find, comprehendingly, that the defendant’s drug sales — unquestionably used…