United States v. James Barta
776 F.3d 931, 2015 WL 350672, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1382 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Government conduct constitutes inducement for an entrapment defense when it involves solicitation plus other conduct, such as repeated attempts at persuasion, fraudulent representations, promises of extraordinary rewards, and pleas to sympathy, that collectively create a risk of entrapping a person not otherwise predisposed to commit the crime.
Facts:
- Ambrosio Medrano and Gustavo Buenrostro were involved in a bribery scheme with an undercover FBI agent named 'George Castro' to secure a government contract.
- Medrano and Buenrostro introduced their friend, James Barta, a founder of the company Sav-Rx, to Castro on March 21, 2012.
- At their first meeting, Barta stated he was not trying to sell anything and was only there at Buenrostro's request.
- At a subsequent meeting on May 9, Barta expressed hesitation, stating a deal would only make sense if Los Angeles County had an actual problem Sav-Rx could solve.
- In response to Barta's hesitation, the FBI fabricated problems with the LA County hospital system and significantly increased the potential value of the fictional contract.
- Between May 9 and June 22, Castro sent Barta numerous emails and made multiple phone calls, including issuing a fake ultimatum, all of which Barta ignored.
- At a final meeting on June 22, which Castro traveled to Nebraska to secure, Barta explained his motivation was to help his friend Buenrostro, stating, "I'd like to see Gus do something. You know Gus, Gus has always been a day late and a dollar short his whole damn life."
- At the conclusion of the June 22 meeting, Barta wrote a Sav-Rx check for $6,500 to Castro to pay the fictional county official.
Procedural Posture:
- James Barta was charged with conspiracy to commit bribery in U.S. District Court.
- At trial, the government conceded that Barta was not predisposed to commit the charged crime.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict.
- Barta filed a post-verdict motion for a judgment of acquittal based on his entrapment defense, which the trial court denied.
- Barta, as the appellant, appealed his conviction 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 conduct, which included repeated unanswered contacts, fraudulent representations about a business opportunity, promises of a highly lucrative contract, and appeals to the defendant's friendship with a co-conspirator, constitute inducement as a matter of law when the government concedes the defendant was not predisposed to commit bribery?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamilton, Circuit Judge
Yes, the government's conduct constituted inducement as a matter of law. Entrapment is established when a non-predisposed defendant is induced by the government to commit a crime. Here, the government conceded Barta was not predisposed, so the only question was inducement, which requires government solicitation plus other conduct. The court found several 'plus factors' signaling inducement were present: 1) 'repeated attempts at persuasion' through unanswered emails and calls; 2) 'fraudulent representations' by inventing problems with the LA hospital system; 3) 'promises of reward beyond that inherent in the customary execution of the crime' by sweetening the deal; and 4) 'pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship' by exploiting Barta's desire to help his friend Buenrostro. The court held that the cumulative effect of these tactics established inducement beyond reasonable dispute, reasoning that the government's role is to catch criminals, not to create them through such persistent and manipulative conduct.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the inducement element of entrapment is a holistic, contextual inquiry, not a rigid application of a checklist. The court emphasizes that the cumulative effect of various government tactics can establish inducement, even if no single tactic would suffice on its own. The ruling serves as a significant check on the scope of government sting operations, particularly where agents employ multifaceted pressure tactics against individuals who are not predisposed to criminal activity. It clarifies that persistence, coupled with deception and emotional appeals, can cross the line from providing an opportunity to commit a crime to impermissibly manufacturing one.
