Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-03016/USCOURTS-caDC-97-03016-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose R. Trejo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed March 3, 1998

No. 97-3016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

APPELLEE

v.

JOSE R. TREJO, A/K/A ROLANDO, A/K/A CAREN TREJO 

APPELLANT

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(96cr00158)

Mary Lou Leary, United States Attorney at the time the 

brief was filed, John R. Fisher, Mary-Patrice Brown, Patricia Stewart, and Patricia Heffernan, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, were on the brief for appellee.

A.J. Kramer, Federal Public Defender and Neil H. Jaffee,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, were on the brief for 

appellant.

USCA Case #97-3016 Document #334395 Filed: 03/03/1998 Page 1 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: WILLIAMS, SENTELLE, and HENDERSON, Circuit 

Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM: Trejo was convicted of two counts of unlawful 

transfer of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 924(h), and two counts of 

unlawful possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(5), and sentenced to four concurrent 27-month prison terms. Trejo argues that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to request an entrapment instruction.

According to the government's evidence, a government 

informant introduced Trejo to undercover special agent Elvis 

Acosta of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. All 

of Agent Acosta's conversations with Trejo, whether by telephone or in person, were taped. In the conversations Trejo 

appeared lucid, knowledgeable about guns, and eager to sell 

Agent Acosta as many handguns as Acosta needed, as well as 

a fully automatic rifle. On two separate occasions Trejo sold 

Agent Acosta a pistol.

The only argument that warrants discussion is Trejo's 

novel claim that the government induced him to sell the guns 

by providing him with drugs, which caused Trejo to become 

intoxicated and thus made him incapable of resisting the 

informant's suggestions of engaging in illegal activity.

In determining whether an entrapment defense is warranted, the court considers appellant's version of the facts to be 

true. See United States v. McKinley, 70 F.3d 1307, 1310 

(D.C. Cir. 1995). Trejo testified that prior to meeting the 

informant he never used narcotics and was not in the business 

of selling guns. According to Trejo, the informant sold or 

gave him drugs. After he ingested the drugs, he began to 

"hallucinate" and would accede to the informant's request to 

say certain things and sell guns to Acosta.

In entrapment cases the key inquiry is whether the defendant lacks the predisposition to commit the offense and is 

induced to do so by government agents. See McKinley, 70 

USCA Case #97-3016 Document #334395 Filed: 03/03/1998 Page 2 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

F.3d at 1311-12. Although the issues of inducement and 

predisposition are for the jury to resolve, the court need not 

give an entrapment instruction if the defendant fails to come 

forward with at least some evidence of government inducement. See id. at 1312.

After contemplating an entrapment defense, Trejo's counsel decided not to pursue one, believing there was insufficient 

evidence to justify asking for an entrapment instruction. 

This decision did not amount to ineffective assistance. Trejo's premise, that the informant induced him to sell guns by 

supplying him with drugs, is unsupported by the evidence. 

Inducement involves "persuasion, fraudulent representations, 

threats, coercive tactics, harassment, promises of reward, or 

pleas based on need, sympathy or friendship." United States 

v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d 1243, 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citation and 

internal quotation omitted). An informant's selling or giving 

drugs to the subject of an investigation, without more, falls 

well short of the type of behavior that would amount to an 

inducement to engage in illegal firearms sales.

Trejo's claim that he sold the guns because the informant 

could control his actions while he was under the influence of 

the drugs also does not rise to the level of inducement. In 

effect, Trejo argues that because the drugs caused him to 

hallucinate and made him pliable, he should be held to a lower 

standard and it should be easier for him to show inducement 

compared to someone who is not using drugs. An individual 

who ingests narcotics voluntarily or as a result of government 

tactics that do not establish inducement, however, is not 

entitled to a reduced burden of proof in demonstrating evidence of inducement to commit later crimes. Cf. United 

States v. Steinberg, 525 F.2d 1126, 1132 (2d Cir. 1975) (a 

defendant's drug addiction does not lower the threshold for 

demonstrating inducement), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 971 (1976). 

Therefore Trejo was not entitled to an entrapment instruction 

as he failed to show that the government, merely by providing him with drugs, implanted a criminal plan to sell guns. 

See United States v. Whoie, 925 F.2d 1481, 1484 (D.C. Cir. 

1991).

USCA Case #97-3016 Document #334395 Filed: 03/03/1998 Page 3 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Because appellant was not entitled to an entrapment instruction, counsel's decision not to request one did not render 

him ineffective. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 

695 (1984); see also United States v. Rector, 111 F.3d 503, 

506-07 (7th Cir. 1997) (where defendant not entitled to an 

entrapment by estoppel instruction based on the evidence at 

trial, defense counsel not ineffective for failing to request it); 

United States v. Debango, 780 F.2d 81, 85 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1986) 

("[b]ecause the proposed jury instructions would have been 

problematic" even if sought, counsel was not ineffective for 

not requesting them).

USCA Case #97-3016 Document #334395 Filed: 03/03/1998 Page 4 of 4