United States v. Knox
112 F.3d 802 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To defeat an entrapment defense where government inducement is conceded, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the criminal act, which requires showing not only the defendant's mental willingness ('dispositional predisposition') but also that the defendant was so situated by experience, training, or contacts that they were likely to commit the crime without the government's intervention ('positional predisposition').
Facts:
- Reverend David Brace's church, Faith Metro, was in severe financial distress and needed to raise approximately $10 million to pay off debts.
- Brace hired Shannon Knox, a financial consultant, to create a private offering to raise funds, but their efforts were unsuccessful.
- An intermediary, Roy Clarkston, connected Knox with undercover federal agents who were running a sting operation and posing as representatives of drug traffickers.
- Knox met with the agents and agreed to launder what he was told were drug proceeds on behalf of Brace's church.
- Brace later met directly with the undercover agents, who explicitly told him the money came from cocaine sales and that they were asking him to launder it.
- Brace stated he was not troubled by the money's source and agreed to the arrangement, citing the church's financial desperation.
- Under the agents' direction, Brace and Knox successfully conducted three 'test' transactions, laundering a total of $350,000 in cash provided by the agents.
- The operation concluded when agents gave Brace and Knox bags purportedly containing $10 million, at which point they were arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- David Brace and Shannon Knox were charged in a four-count indictment for money laundering and conspiracy in the United States District Court (the trial court).
- At trial, both defendants raised the defense of entrapment.
- The jury rejected the defense and convicted both Brace and Knox on all counts.
- The district court sentenced Brace to 175 months and Knox to 97 months in prison.
- Brace and Knox, as appellants, appealed their convictions and sentences to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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 fail to prove predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby establishing entrapment as a matter of law, when it demonstrates a defendant's willingness to commit a crime but offers no evidence that the defendant had the skills, experience, or contacts to likely commit the crime absent the government's specific intervention and guidance?
Opinions:
Majority - DeMOSS, Circuit Judge
Yes. The government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Brace was predisposed to launder money, establishing entrapment as a matter of law. The court adopts the Seventh Circuit's reasoning in United States v. Hollingsworth, which requires the government to prove both 'dispositional' and 'positional' predisposition. While the evidence of Brace's mental willingness to commit the crime was 'close,' the government offered no evidence whatsoever that Brace was in a position to launder money absent the government's involvement. Brace had no criminal record, no experience in money laundering, and no contacts in the criminal underworld. The government failed to show that real drug dealers would use a novice like Brace or that a church would be a useful vehicle for such an operation. Because Brace was an 'otherwise law-abiding citizen' who, if left to his own devices, likely would have never committed such a crime, his conviction must be reversed.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for adopting the 'positional predisposition' requirement for the entrapment defense, deepening a circuit split on the issue. By holding that the government must prove a defendant was not just willing but also able and likely to commit the crime independently, the court raises the bar for prosecutors in sting operations. This precedent makes it more difficult for the government to secure convictions against individuals who lack prior criminal experience or contacts, effectively protecting 'unwary innocents' from being turned into criminals by government inducement. The ruling will likely influence litigation strategies in future entrapment cases, forcing the government to present more concrete evidence of a defendant's preexisting criminal capabilities.
