United States v. Curtis Miller
1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 19965, 891 F.2d 1265, 1989 WL 153114 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Government conduct must be so outrageous that it violates fundamental fairness and is shocking to the universal sense of justice to warrant dismissal of an indictment under the Due Process Clause; the use of a paid, drug-addicted informant who had a prior romantic relationship with the defendant does not meet this high standard, particularly when the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime.
Facts:
- Curtis Miller and Linda Zefo had a brief intimate relationship in January 1988.
- In February 1988, Zefo, a known cocaine addict, became a paid confidential informant for the Multi-County Narcotic Enforcement Group (MEG).
- Zefo contacted Tim Palmer, Miller's roommate and her long-time friend, to arrange a drug buy, but Palmer directed her to Miller.
- Zefo then contacted Miller several times to arrange a sale of cocaine to an undercover agent.
- On March 18, 1988, Miller sold 3.5 grams of cocaine to MEG Agent Randy Squire.
- During this sale, Miller told Squire his source required money upfront and displayed a wallet full of cash.
- On April 4, 1988, Miller sold an additional 6.9 grams of cocaine to Agent Squire.
- Miller told Agent Squire he could procure up to an ounce of cocaine from his Florida source who visited the area every three weeks.
Procedural Posture:
- Curtis Miller was charged in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
- Following a bench trial, the district court found Miller guilty on one count of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine and two counts of distributing cocaine.
- Miller filed a post-trial motion for a new trial, claiming the government's use of the informant constituted 'outrageous conduct.'
- The district court denied the motion for a new trial.
- The court sentenced Miller to concurrent prison terms of 32 months.
- Miller appealed his conviction and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 the government's employment of a paid, drug-addicted confidential informant, who had a prior romantic relationship with the defendant, to arrange drug transactions with the defendant constitute outrageous government conduct that violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Cudahy, Circuit Judge
No, the government's conduct does not violate the Due Process Clause. To preclude prosecution, government conduct must be 'truly outrageous' and violate the 'fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice' standard. The factors here—a contingent fee arrangement with the informant, her continued drug use, and her prior sexual relationship with Miller—do not, either separately or combined, rise to this level. This court has previously held that contingent fees are not per se outrageous and that employing 'unsavory' characters like drug users is a necessary part of undercover work. Furthermore, the sexual relationship had ended before Zefo became an informant, and there is no evidence the government encouraged her to use sex to investigate Miller. Most importantly, substantial evidence demonstrated Miller's predisposition to distribute cocaine, meaning the government merely afforded him an opportunity to commit the crime, which is a proper law enforcement technique.
Concurring - Easterbrook, Circuit Judge
No. While I agree with the outcome, the 'outrageous governmental conduct' defense should be rejected as a matter of law. This defense is not based on any personal right of the defendant but rather on a subjective, unprincipled judicial veto of law enforcement tactics, leading to inconsistent results based on judges' personal feelings. A defendant who commits a crime with the requisite mens rea and is not entrapped should be convicted. If law enforcement methods are problematic, it is a political issue for Congress to address through oversight, not a constitutional matter for courts to resolve by freeing a guilty person. Precedent from cases like Hampton v. United States and United States v. Payner indicates that the Supreme Court has already closed the door on using due process as a general-purpose tool to police government investigations.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the extremely high threshold for succeeding on an 'outrageous government conduct' defense in the Seventh Circuit, making it a virtually defunct claim. The court's analysis demonstrates that even a combination of troubling investigative tactics, such as using a vulnerable, drug-addicted informant with a personal connection to the target, will be insufficient to meet the standard if the defendant is predisposed. Judge Easterbrook's powerful concurrence goes further, articulating a deep judicial skepticism toward the defense's constitutional legitimacy and signaling that the circuit is inclined to abolish it entirely, thereby discouraging future litigants from raising the claim.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Curtis Miller