Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-13-03882/USCOURTS-ca6-13-03882-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donte Booker
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0021n.06

No. 13-3882

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DONTE BOOKER

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

Before: MCKEAGUE and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.

*

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Cleveland police officers and an ATF agent tricked Donte 

Booker into attempting to possess cocaine with the intent to sell it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841 and 846. Booker appeals his conviction, arguing that the government entrapped him as a 

matter of law. Booker also argues that the district court should have allowed the jury to hear 

evidence about his wrongful conviction for an unrelated rape. We affirm.

I.

Booker served 17 years in prison for a 1987 rape he did not commit. After his release, a 

DNA test proved his innocence and the convictions were vacated. Ohio later paid Booker 

$618,000 to settle his wrongful-conviction lawsuit. 

 

* The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of 

Kentucky, sitting by designation.

 Case: 13-3882 Document: 73-2 Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 1
United States v. Booker

No. 13-3882

2

The sting operation at issue here took place several years later. In October 2012 an 

informant, Daisetta Harris, told Cleveland Detective Todd Clark that Booker had asked her to 

help him rob drugs and money from stash houses. Detective Clark set up a sting operation to 

catch Booker. At Detective Clark’s behest, Harris told Booker that she knew two people who 

might be willing to help with a robbery: a woman named Angelique, and Angelique’s drugcourier boyfriend, Andre. 

Harris later introduced Booker to “Angelique” (an undercover policewoman) at a meeting 

in a dark parking lot outside of a local Burger King. Booker told the officer and Harris “that he 

was a professional,” and that he “didn’t want to deal with any amateurs.” R. 70 at 10-11. 

Booker’s “profession,” he said, was robbing drug dealers. Booker later met “Andre” (an 

undercover ATF agent). Andre agreed to tell Booker where he was delivering drugs. Booker 

proposed to follow Andre to a hotel and rob him. Booker told Andre that, during the robbery,

Booker would pistol whip him, duct tape him, and put him in the trunk of Booker’s car, so that 

Andre’s boss would not suspect him of involvement in the heist. R. 69 at 187. Booker also said 

that, if necessary, he “would kill anybody up in this bitch.” R. 70 at 14. 

Andre’s real bosses at the ATF were concerned about his safety, so Detective Clark 

arranged a new plan to avoid potential violence. Harris and Angelique met with Booker again; 

this time Angelique told Booker that Andre would leave ten kilograms of cocaine in an unlocked 

car in a hotel parking lot. Then, Booker could simply walk up to the car and take the drugs. 

Booker agreed to the new plan. He also told Angelique that he already had a buyer lined up for 

the cocaine, so selling it would be no problem. R. 70 at 16-17.

The police set up surveillance at a La Quinta Inn parking lot, and put a duffel bag with 

ten kilograms of fake cocaine in a black Chevy Avalanche. Harris called Booker and told him 

 Case: 13-3882 Document: 73-2 Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 2
United States v. Booker

No. 13-3882

3

everything was ready. After darkness fell, Booker drove to the hotel and scouted the lot. He 

parked, ran to the Avalanche, took out the bag of fake drugs, and ran back to his car. Then, a 

SWAT team moved in. Booker tried to escape, but he crashed his car into a snow bank. He then 

fled on foot onto a busy freeway, but a policeman caught up with him, moved him off the 

freeway, and arrested him. 

Booker was indicted for attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Before 

trial, the government moved to exclude evidence about Booker’s exoneration in the 1987 rape 

case. R. 22. The district court granted the motion, but said that its ruling was “interim.” R. 69 

at 2. The court added that it would revisit the issue if Booker could convince the court that the 

exoneration was relevant to the drug charge. Id. 

At trial, the prosecution played audio and video recordings of Booker’s meetings with the 

undercover agents. Booker testified that he was merely acting out scenes from one of his 

favorite movies. R. 51 at 22, 27-28. Booker also testified that the robbery was Harris’s idea, and 

that she had repeatedly called him and urged him to participate. Id. at 20-21, 25-30. The jury 

ultimately convicted Booker, and he was sentenced to 200 months’ imprisonment. This appeal 

followed.

II.

A.

Booker first argues that the district court should have granted his motion for acquittal

because he was entrapped as a matter of law. Booker made the motion after the close of the 

government’s case, but he failed to renew the motion at the end of the trial. Thus, we will 

reverse the district court only if necessary to correct a “manifest miscarriage of justice.” United 

 Case: 13-3882 Document: 73-2 Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 3
United States v. Booker

No. 13-3882

4

States v. Damra, 621 F.3d 474, 494 (6th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). Under this 

standard, we affirm unless “the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.” Id. 

To prove entrapment, a defendant must show both that the government induced the crime

and that he lacked the predisposition to commit it. United States v. Al-Cholan, 610 F.3d 945, 

950 (6th Cir. 2010). If a defendant shows inducement, the burden shifts to the government to 

prove predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 

548-49 (1992). The ultimate question is whether the government implanted a criminal 

disposition in the mind of an “unwary innocent,” or instead merely tricked an “unwary criminal.” 

United States v. Harris, 9 F.3d 493, 497 (6th Cir. 1993). Entrapment is usually a jury question: 

a defendant is entrapped as a matter of law only when the facts are “undisputed” and demonstrate 

a “patently clear absence of predisposition.” Id. at 497-98 (quotation marks omitted). 

Here, setting aside the question of inducement, we ask whether Booker was predisposed

to possess and distribute cocaine. Booker told Harris and the undercover officers that he robbed

stash houses for a living, and that he would have no problem selling the stolen drugs. R. 69 at 

128, R. 70 at 10-11. Harris testified that, in her first meeting with Booker—which was supposed 

to concern identity theft—Booker first brought up the idea of robbing a drug house. R. 69 at 

128-29. The undercover officer who posed as Angelique testified that Booker was impatient to 

carry out the robbery and frustrated by delays. R. 70 at 17. In short, a great deal of evidence at 

trial suggested that Booker was predisposed to possess and sell cocaine. Thus, the district court 

properly denied Booker’s motion for acquittal. Harris, 9 F.3d at 497-98.

B.

Booker also argues that the district court should have denied the government’s motion to 

exclude evidence of his exoneration in the rape case. Normally, we review a district court’s 

 Case: 13-3882 Document: 73-2 Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 4
United States v. Booker

No. 13-3882

5

evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Poulsen, 655 F.3d 492, 510 (6th 

Cir. 2011). If before the trial a district court excludes evidence on a temporary or conditional 

basis, however, the losing party must attempt to introduce that evidence at trial to preserve the 

issue for appeal. Poulsen, 655 F.3d at 510 (losing party must object at trial after conditional

denial of motion in limine); Crowe v. Bolduc, 334 F.3d 124, 133 (1st Cir. 2003). Here, the 

district court said that its ruling was “interim,” and invited Booker to “approach the bench and 

try to get a different ruling” during trial if Booker still believed the evidence was relevant. R. 69 

at 2. Booker never accepted the district court’s invitation, so he forfeited this argument. Thus,

we review only for plain error. See Crowe, 334 F.3d at 133. The exclusion was plain error if, 

among other requirements; the alleged error was clear and affected the outcome of the trial. 

United States v. Lawrence, 735 F.3d 385, 401 (6th Cir. 2013).

The district court held that evidence of Booker’s exoneration for the 1987 rape charge 

was not relevant to any issue in his trial. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 401, evidence is 

relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the 

evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible under Rule 402. Id. at 402.

Here, Booker contends that his exoneration was relevant to the predisposition element of 

his entrapment defense. Specifically, he says that the large sum of money he received as a result 

of the exoneration is relevant to the question whether he was motivated by profit. The amount of 

money Booker had is indeed relevant to that question; but the source of the money is not. And 

nothing in the district court’s ruling prevented Booker from presenting evidence about the 

amount of money he had. As for the exoneration itself, it establishes only that Booker was 

innocent of a rape in 1987; it says nothing about his predisposition to commit a drug crime in 

 Case: 13-3882 Document: 73-2 Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 5
United States v. Booker

No. 13-3882

6

2013. Thus, the exoneration was inadmissible, and the district court did not plainly err in

excluding it. 

Finally, Booker argues that excluding the exoneration violated his constitutional right to 

present a meaningful defense. See United States v. Blackwell, 459 F.3d 739, 752-53 (6th Cir. 

2006). But a defendant’s right to present a meaningful defense does not include a right to 

present evidence that is “inadmissible under standard rules of evidence.” Id. at 753 (quotation 

marks omitted). Here, as shown above, Booker’s exoneration was inadmissible under Rule 402, 

so this argument is meritless as well.

The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

 Case: 13-3882 Document: 73-2 Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 6