United States v. Joseph Spriggs, III
102 F.3d 1245, 322 U.S. App. D.C. 217 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The entrapment defense is offense-specific, meaning a defendant's predisposition is evaluated for each charged offense independently. A finding that a defendant was induced to commit an initial offense does not establish a defense of 'continuing entrapment' for all subsequent offenses in a series.
Facts:
- An undercover D.C. Police Detective, Larry Best, posing as a drug dealer named 'Rob', initiated a sting operation targeting car salesmen at Washington-area suburban dealerships.
- Best explicitly informed the targeted salesmen, including appellants Smyth, deMesones, Spriggs, and Adamson, that he was a cocaine dealer and wished to purchase cars with cash proceeds from drug sales.
- Over a two-year period, the appellants participated in multiple car sales to Best, knowingly using fake driver's licenses he provided for the paperwork.
- Appellant Smyth acted as Best's primary contact, arranging deals with other salesmen at the Rosenthal dealerships and receiving a $5,000 tip for his services.
- Appellant deMesones participated in three early transactions and was recorded asking for a 'one percent counting fee' for handling the large sums of cash.
- Appellant Spriggs, who worked for deMesones, drove into the District of Columbia on three separate occasions to pick up Best and bags of cash.
- All appellants except Adamson accepted substantial cash tips from Best on top of the cash paid to the dealerships for the vehicles.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Smyth, deMesones, Spriggs, Adamson, and others in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on one count of conspiracy and numerous counts of money laundering and attempted money laundering.
- The defendants filed pre-trial motions challenging manufactured venue and the jury selection process, which the district court denied.
- Following a four-month jury trial, the appellants were convicted of money laundering and attempted money laundering but were acquitted of the conspiracy charge.
- The district court sentenced Smyth to 108 months, deMesones to 57 months, Spriggs to 41 months, and Adamson to 57 months in prison.
- The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 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 finding that a defendant was entrapped by a government agent into committing an initial offense require acquittal on all subsequent related offenses under a theory of 'continuing entrapment'?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A defendant's predisposition to commit a crime must be evaluated separately for each individual offense, and an initial act of entrapment does not automatically extend to all subsequent offenses. Citing its recent decision in United States v. Vaughn, the court reasoned that a person's predisposition is not static; one might be predisposed to commit a crime at one point but not another. Therefore, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit each charged crime separately. The court also rejected an 'indirect entrapment' defense, holding under the framework of United States v. Layeni that the defense is not available when an unwitting intermediary, on their own initiative, induces the defendant to commit a crime, even if that intermediary was being pressured by the government. The government must have specifically instructed the intermediary to induce the particular defendant.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the applicability of the entrapment defense in cases involving a series of criminal acts, such as ongoing sting operations. By rejecting the 'continuing entrapment' theory, the court places a high burden on defendants to demonstrate a lack of predisposition for each separate offense, making it difficult to claim that an initial inducement taints an entire course of conduct. This reinforces the principle that predisposition is a fluid state, assessed at the time of each crime. The ruling also clarifies the stringent requirements for claiming indirect entrapment, limiting it to cases where the government explicitly directs an unwitting third party to induce the defendant.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Joseph Spriggs, III