United States v. Blitch
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22664, 2014 WL 6766697, 773 F.3d 837 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An entrapment defense is unavailable when the government merely provides an ordinary opportunity to commit a crime, without improper inducement, and the defendant demonstrates a clear predisposition to engage in the criminal activity.
Facts:
- In 2006, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) created a sting operation involving a fictional drug stash house robbery.
- A paid informant, Jamison Moore, began recruiting individuals to participate in the robbery.
- Undercover ATF Special Agent David Gomez, posing as a disgruntled drug courier named "Loquito," met with defendants Devarl Washington, Michael Carwell, Michael Harris, and Christopher Blitch to plan the robbery of a cartel stash house.
- During recorded meetings, the defendants enthusiastically discussed logistics, weaponry, and how they would handle potential violence, with Carwell stating they were a "bunch o' wolves that's hungry."
- The defendants debated the best way to conduct the robbery to maximize their take of the fictional 15-25 kilograms of cocaine.
- Carwell detailed his specific plans to sell his share of the stolen cocaine on the street after the robbery.
- Agent Gomez explicitly told the defendants that if they did not want to participate, he would find another crew, and none of them opted out.
- On the designated day, all four defendants met Agent Gomez at the rendezvous point, each armed with a loaded firearm, ready to execute the robbery.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher Blitch, Michael Carwell, Devarl Washington, and Michael Harris were charged in federal district court with conspiracy, attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and firearms violations.
- In 2007, a jury convicted the defendants on all counts.
- The defendants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial due to errors in jury selection.
- At the second trial, the district court granted the government's motion in limine to prevent defendants Carwell and Harris from presenting an entrapment defense.
- The second jury acquitted the defendants on the attempt charge but convicted them on all other counts.
- Carwell and Harris appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing the district court erred by precluding their entrapment defense.
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 government-created sting operation involving a fictional drug stash house robbery constitute entrapment when the defendants eagerly agree to participate without evidence of undue government persuasion, threats, or coercion?
Opinions:
Majority - Randa, District Judge.
No. A government sting operation that merely offers an opportunity to commit a crime does not constitute entrapment where defendants are already predisposed to the criminal act. The court found no evidence of improper government inducement, which requires more than simple solicitation; it requires conduct like threats, persistent persuasion, or fraudulent representations that would cause an otherwise law-abiding person to commit a crime. Here, the government's offer was a 'take-it-or-leave-it proposition,' and the defendants were given a chance to back out. Furthermore, the defendants' enthusiastic participation, prior criminal records, and detailed planning demonstrated a clear predisposition to commit the crime. Carwell's eagerness to 'flood the city' with his share of the cocaine and Harris's discussion of 'artillery' were powerful evidence of their readiness and willingness, negating any claim of entrapment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for defendants claiming entrapment in government sting operations, particularly in the common scenario of fictional drug stash house robberies. It clarifies that presenting a lucrative criminal opportunity, by itself, does not constitute improper 'inducement.' The court's focus on the defendants' enthusiastic and detailed participation as evidence of 'predisposition' makes it very difficult for defendants in similar cases to succeed with an entrapment defense. This case serves as a strong precedent for prosecutors, affirming the legitimacy of sting operations that test a suspect's willingness to commit a crime without crossing the line into coercive tactics.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Blitch