Gary Bradley v. W.A. Duncan, Warden

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
315 F.3d 1091 (2002)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The failure to instruct a jury on a defendant's only defense theory violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in the defendant's favor on that defense. Police conduct that uses an agent's visible physical suffering to appeal to a person's sympathy can constitute impermissible entrapment, thus warranting such an instruction.

Facts:

Undercover narcotics officers Servando Pena and Melissa Town used Jose de Jesus Flores, who was visibly suffering from drug withdrawal, as a decoy.
Flores was pale, shaking, smelled of vomit, and told the officers he desperately needed cocaine.
Upon encountering Gary Bradley, Flores exited the police vehicle, vomited audibly, and approached Bradley.
Flores, appearing sick and 'tweaking,' implored Bradley to help him get a 'fix,' repeatedly asking, 'Can you help me?' and pleading, 'Please, please, big man, would you help me out?'
Bradley stated he did not sell drugs himself but, motivated by sympathy for Flores's condition, agreed to help him find someone who did.
After one unsuccessful attempt, Bradley located co-defendant Tyrone Jennings.
Bradley took a twenty-dollar bill from the officers, used it to obtain cocaine from Jennings, and delivered the cocaine to Flores and the officers.
Bradley was arrested minutes later with no drugs found on his person.

Procedural Posture:

Gary Bradley was first tried for selling cocaine in California state court.
The trial court instructed the jury on entrapment, the jury deadlocked, and the court declared a mistrial.
Bradley was retried on the same charge in a different state court proceeding.
At the second trial, the judge refused the defense's request for an entrapment instruction.
The jury convicted Bradley.
Bradley appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence did not warrant an entrapment instruction.
Bradley filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus in U.S. District Court.
The District Court conditionally granted Bradley's habeas petition, finding a due process violation.
The State (Warden William A. Duncan, appellant) appealed the grant of habeas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a state trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment violate a defendant's Fourteenth Amendment due process right to present a complete defense when entrapment is the defendant's only defense and is supported by evidence that police used an agent's visible suffering from drug withdrawal to induce the crime?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Ferguson

Yes. The state trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on entrapment violated Bradley's due process right to present a complete defense. Bradley presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find he was entrapped under California's objective test, which focuses on impermissible police conduct likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime. The police used an unwitting agent, Flores, whose extreme physical suffering from drug withdrawal constituted an appeal to sympathy that a jury could find was 'badgering, cajoling, [or] importuning.' By refusing the instruction on Bradley's only defense, the court effectively deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. The error was not harmless, as demonstrated by the first trial, where the instruction was given and the jury deadlocked, versus the second trial, where it was not given and the jury convicted.

Dissenting - Judge Graber

No. The trial court's refusal to give an entrapment instruction did not violate Bradley's due process rights. The majority improperly substitutes its judgment for the state court's on a matter of state law. The California Court of Appeal reasonably concluded that the evidence was insufficient to warrant an entrapment instruction, as the police merely offered an opportunity to commit a crime. A normally law-abiding person, when faced with a stranger suffering from withdrawal, would seek a lawful alternative, such as calling for medical help, rather than procuring illegal drugs. The entrapment defense is not of a constitutional dimension, and because the instruction was not required under state law, the refusal to give it did not violate federal due process. Furthermore, the judge in the second trial was not bound by the first judge's decision in a proceeding that ended in a mistrial.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces that the due process right to present a complete defense is not merely procedural but substantive, requiring a trial judge to instruct the jury on any defense theory that has evidentiary support. It clarifies that under an objective entrapment test, police tactics that manipulate a target's sympathy can be deemed impermissible inducement, rather than a mere opportunity to commit a crime. The ruling also underscores the power of federal habeas corpus to correct state trial errors that effectively deny a defendant their only defense, treating such a failure as an 'unreasonable application' of federal law under AEDPA.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Gary Bradley v. W.A. Duncan, Warden (2002)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"