N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. B IYU SITU,De fe nda

nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10485

D.C . No. 1:16-c r-00557-SOM -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii Susa n O. M ollwa

y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 14, 2019 * * Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : TALLM AN, B YB E E, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. B iy u Situ wa s a

rre ste d a nd indic te d for two c ounts of bribery . At tria l, she
ra ise d a n e ntra pm e nt de fe nse , and the pa rtie s a gre e d

to givethe Ninth C i rc uit M ode l Jury

Instruc tion on e ntra

pm e nt. Se e 9 t

h C ir. M ode l C rim . Jury

Instr. 6.2. 

# FIL ED FEB 15 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).The gove rnm e nt re que ste d two a dditional instruc tions, to which Situ obje c te d. The

distric t c o urt a c c e p te d the instruc tions without m odific ation, a

nd the jury

c onvic te d Situ of both c ounts of bribery . Situ a ppe a ls. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s

“ form ulation of jury

instruc tions for a

n a buse of disc re tion,” Unite d State s v . Pow e l l , 955 F.2d 1206, 1210 (9th C ir. 1991), but re vie w the instruc tions denovo whe n “ c ha l le nge d a s m issta t e m e nts of la

w,” Unite d State

s v . Gonzale

z–Torre s , 309 F.3d 594, 600 (9th C ir. 2002). On a ppe a l, Situ a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by giving the

a d ditiona l instruc tions be c a use the y are inc o nsiste nt with Ninth C irc uit la w a nd pre c lude d

the jury from c onside ring the unde rc ove r a ge nt’ s a rtific e and Situ’ s frie ndship with the inform ant. Thus, Situ a sse rts, the instruc tions

“ na rrowe d wha

t c ould be prope rly

c o nside re d by

the jury .” The distric t c ourt did not err in giving the artific e instruc tion. Ninth C irc uit M ode l C rim ina l Jury Instruc tion 4.10 sta te s tha t “ [l] aw e nforc e m e nt offic ia l s m ay e nga ge in ste a lth a

nd de c e ption, suc h a s the use of inform a nts a nd unde rc ove r a ge nts, in orde r to inve stiga te c rim ina l a c tivitie s.” “ This instruc tion should be give n whe n the e ntra

pm e nt de fe nse is be i ng a sse rte d,” M ode l C rim . Jury Instr. 9th C ir. 4.10 c m

t ., be c a u se it “ dispe l[s] juror c onc e rns ove r the proprie ty of gove rnm e nta l unde rc ove r a c tivity ,” Unite d State s v . Hoy t , 879 F.2d 505, 510 (9th
2C ir.), ame nde d , 888 F.2d 1257 (9th C ir. 1989). He re , the proprie ty of the gove rnm e nt’ s c o nduc t wa s at issue , a nd the c ourt wa s within its disc re tion to instruc t the jury on a m atte r that m ay othe rwise be m i ssing from the instruc tions. Se e Pow e ll , 955 F.2d a

t 1210 (“ A tria l c ourt is given substa ntia l la titudein ta iloring jury

instruc tions so long a s the y fa irly and a de quate ly

c o ve r the issue s pre s e nte d.” (c ita

tion omitte d)). As to thefrie n dship instruc tion, thedistric t c ourt did not err by de ny i ng Situ’ s re que st to a dd the word “ a lone ” a fte r “ m e re sugge stion” be c a use it would have “ c re ate [d] a

re dunda n c y .” Se e Unite d State

s v . You , 382 F.3d 958, 966 (9th C ir. 2004) (finding the

distric t c ourt did not err whe n it de c line d to a dd a word to a jury instruc tion be c a

use it would c re ate a

re dunda nc y ); Unite d State

s v . Me n doza–Prado , 314 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ The m e re sugge stion to
c om m it a c rim e doe s not a

m ount to induc e m e nt, e ve n if the sugge stion is ma de by
a frie nd.” (c ita

t ion om i tte d)). The word “ m e re ” wa s suffic ie nt to indic ate tha t
a lthough frie ndship c ould be c onside re d, it wa s not suffic ie nt to e sta blish
e ntra pm e nt on its own. The instruc tions did not m issta te Ninth C irc u i t la

w, s e e Unite d State

s v . Spe ntz , 653 F.3d 815, 819 (9th C ir. 2011); Unite d State s v . Poe hlman , 217 F.3d 692, 701 (9th C ir. 2000), nor im prope rly lim it wha

t the jury c ould c onside r.
3R athe r, the distric t c ourt inform e d the jury tha t it c ould “ c onside r any

gove rnm e nt
c onduc t c re ating a

substa ntia l risk tha

t a n othe rwise innoc e nt pe rson would c om m it
an offe nse , inc l uding pe rsua sion, fra udule nt re pre se ntation, thre at s, c oe rc ive ta c tic s, ha ra ssm e nt, prom ise s of re ward, or ple a s ba se d on ne e d, sy m pathy or frie ndship.” S

e e 9th C i r. M o de l C rim . Jury Instr. 6.2; Unite d State

s v . W illiams , 547 F.3d 1187, 1197 (9th C ir. 2008). R e ga rdle ss, a ny e rror wa s ha

rm le ss. Dang v . C

ross , 422 F.3d 800, 805 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ If . . . the e rror in the jury instruc tion is ha

rm le ss, it doe s not wa

rrant
re ve rsa l.” ). The gove rnm e nt m ay ove rc om e an e ntra

pm e nt de fe nse by showing
e ithe r that the de fe nda

nt “ wa s not induc e d by

the gove rnm e nt a ge nts to c om m it the
c rim e ” or tha

t she “ w a s pre dispose d to c om m it the c rim e be fore be ing c o nta c te d b y gove rnm e nt a ge nts.” M ode l C rim . Jury Instr. 9th C ir. 6.2; se e also United State s v . Te mk i n , 797 F.3d 682, 691 (9th C ir. 2015). Prior to the re c orde d m e e ting, Situ sta te d tha t she wa nte d prote c tion to “ke e p the polic e off [he r] ba c k.” This e vide nc e wa s suffic ie nt for a

jury to find tha

t she wa s pre dispose d the c rim e . Thus “ the re is
no re a sona

ble possibility

tha t the e rror m ate ria lly

a ffe c te d the ve rdic t.” Unite d State s v . K oshne v is , 979 F.2d 691, 696 (9th C ir. 1992) (c ita tion omitte d ). AFFIRM E D.

4