Background
Shronda Covington and Tonya Farley were BOP employees charged after an inmate named W.W. died in custody. Covington was convicted of violating W.W.’s constitutional rights under Section 242 and making false statements. Farley was convicted of making false statements but acquitted of the Section 242 charge. The district court denied Covington’s request for a proximate-cause instruction and enhanced Farley’s sentence based on conduct for which she was acquitted.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that Section 242’s phrase bodily injury results from requires both but-for and proximate cause. Although the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, the failure to instruct on proximate cause was not harmless error because the jury might have reached a different conclusion had they been properly instructed. Regarding sentencing, the court found the district court violated the guidelines by considering acquitted conduct for Farley’s offense level calculation.
We hold that bodily injury only results from a defendant’s Section 242 violation if the defendant’s conduct was both the but-for and proximate cause of the victim’s injury.
The dissent
What it means going forward
Covington’s conviction on the Section 242 count is vacated and the case is remanded for a new trial on that count. Farley’s sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing without the improper enhancements.