United States v. Leslie Mayfield
771 F.3d 417, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21525, 2014 WL 5861628 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is entitled to present an entrapment defense to the jury by proffering 'some evidence' of both government inducement and a lack of predisposition. Inducement requires government solicitation plus other conduct creating a risk that a non-predisposed person would commit the crime, and predisposition is assessed based on the defendant's readiness to commit the crime prior to government contact.
Facts:
- Leslie Mayfield, who had a 1994 conviction for armed carjacking, was released from prison in 2005 and participated in anti-recidivism programs.
- In 2009, while working a temporary job, Mayfield met Jeffrey Potts, a coworker who was secretly a confidential informant for the ATF.
- Potts first invited Mayfield to join him in selling cocaine, an offer Mayfield rebuffed.
- Over a period of time, Potts persistently tried to persuade Mayfield to participate in a lucrative stash-house robbery, appealing to Mayfield's financial difficulties, but Mayfield repeatedly declined.
- After Mayfield's car was damaged in an accident, Potts gave him $180 for repairs, creating a debt.
- Potts then gestured to Mayfield’s Gangster Disciples tattoo and mentioned his own continued association with the gang, which Mayfield interpreted as a threat that he would be in danger if he did not repay the debt.
- Following this interaction, Mayfield agreed to participate in the stash-house robbery conspiracy.
- Mayfield met with an undercover agent posing as a drug courier, helped plan the robbery, recruited a crew, gathered weapons, and was arrested at the prearranged meeting spot.
Procedural Posture:
- The government charged Leslie Mayfield in U.S. District Court with conspiracy, attempt to distribute cocaine, and firearms offenses.
- Prior to trial, the government filed a motion in limine to preclude Mayfield from presenting an entrapment defense.
- The district court granted the government's motion, barring the defense.
- A jury convicted Mayfield on all counts.
- Mayfield appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- A divided three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.
- The Seventh Circuit granted Mayfield's petition for rehearing en banc to clarify the court's entrapment doctrine.
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 district court err by precluding a defendant from presenting an entrapment defense at trial when the defendant proffers some evidence of both government inducement and a lack of predisposition, and the court weighs that proffer against the government's contrary evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Sykes, Circuit Judge.
Yes. The district court erred by crediting the government’s evidence over Mayfield’s and precluding the entrapment defense before trial. A defendant is entitled to an entrapment instruction if he can show that some evidence supports both lack of predisposition and government inducement, and when this issue is raised before trial, the court must accept the defendant’s factual proffer as true and not weigh it against the government's counterstatement. The court clarified that inducement is more than a mere opportunity; it is solicitation plus other government conduct (e.g., persuasion, threats, pleas to friendship) that creates a risk an otherwise innocent person would commit the crime. Predisposition is the defendant's readiness and willingness to commit the crime prior to government contact, not a generalized criminal character. Here, Mayfield proffered evidence of inducement through Potts's persistent pressure, creation of a debt, and a veiled threat. He also proffered evidence of his lack of predisposition through his repeated refusals to join the scheme, which is sufficient to allow a jury to decide the issue.
Dissenting - Bauer, Circuit Judge.
No. The district court's decision should be affirmed because Mayfield was not entrapped. The record shows Mayfield was 'salivating to commit the crime' and his greed should not entitle him to an entrapment defense. The offered robbery was not an 'extraordinary' inducement because while lucrative, it was also highly risky. Allowing a predisposed criminal to claim entrapment simply because they were entering a new, more profitable field of crime would improperly collapse the inducement and predisposition elements.
Dissenting - Easterbrook, Circuit Judge.
No. The district court properly precluded the defense. Mayfield demonstrated he was willing to commit a violent robbery for the right price, which is not entrapment. No ordinarily law-abiding person would have agreed to a plan that entailed a considerable risk of violence, including killing armed guards. By depicting the robbery as dangerous, the government ensured that only someone already predisposed to violent crime would participate. Mayfield acted as a leader in assembling an armed team, not as a person whose will was overborne by the government.
Analysis:
This en banc decision significantly clarifies the entrapment doctrine in the Seventh Circuit by providing distinct, functional definitions for 'inducement' and 'predisposition.' It strengthens the role of the jury by establishing a low procedural bar for defendants to raise the defense, requiring only 'some evidence' on both elements. The ruling instructs district courts to refrain from weighing evidence at the pretrial stage, thus preventing the premature dismissal of potentially valid entrapment claims and ensuring that factual disputes about the defendant's state of mind and the government's conduct are resolved by a jury. This precedent makes it more difficult for the government to block an entrapment defense before trial through a motion in limine.
