## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 2761 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. S CO TT G USTIN , D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 1:09- CR-10019- 002

—Mi ch ael J . Reagan, Ju dge
.
A RG UE D M AY 9, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UNE 7, 2011

B efor e E A ST E RB ROO K, Chie f Judge, and W OODa nd W IL L IA MS, C ir cuit Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Ju dge

. A j ury concl ud ed that, whi l e c o nfi ne d a ta fe de r a l p r i s o n, Scot tGu s t i n a nd a confedera te stabbed and wound ed anothe r in m ate
. Gu s t i n wa s c o nv i c t e d o fa t t e mpt e d mur de r, 1 8 U. S

. C. §1 13 (a)( 1), an d se n te n c ed to life im p ris on m en t. H is defen se a t tr i alwas tha t he di d no t at ta ck th e vi ct i m , who del iber ate ly m i si denti fi ed hi m as the agg re sso r i n or der2 N o. 10

- 2761 to settle a score am ong gang s a nd prote ct th e true p erpetra tor. The att ack occur re d i n a c om m on a re a, so o th eri nm at es c o ul d ha ve b ee n r es po nsibl e, b utthe j ury bel i eve d the vi cti m , and othe r evi dence al so su ppo r ts the c o nv i ct i o n. A fterGusti n appeal ed, w e appoint ed new co unsel to advocat e hi s i nter est s. Gusti n’s n ew l aw yer s m ake a si ngl e a rgum ent: That the di str i ct j ud ge shoul d have di sa l l o wed G ustin’ s ac tu alde f en se a nd i ns i st ed th athe ra ise a d iffer e n t o n e: en tr ap m en t. T ec h n ica lly G u st in co ul d ha ve a r g ue d ent r apmentwhi l e den y i ngtha t he att ac ked the vi cti m , se e M a thew s v. U nited Sta tes , 485 U
. S. 58 ( 1988 ) , but i nconsi ste nt defenses usual l y a re the functi o na l e qui va l en t o fa g ui l typl ea . I n Ma t h e ws i ts el f, the defe nd ant ad m itte d that he had com m i tte d the char ged acts bu t con t e n d ed that he lacked crim inal i nt en t, in pa rt b ec au se ofentr apm ent. S i nce M athe ws we h a v e n e v er se en an y d efe n d an t a rg u e : “I d id n ’t d o it, b u t if I d id I w as en tr ap p ed .” S o a p p ella te co u n se l is effe c tiv ely c o nt e ndi ngtha tthe t r i a l j ud g e wa s o b l i g e d t o o v e r r i de the defen se s trate gy ofdenyi ng tha t Gusti n stabbed th e vi ct i m . Appel l at e co uns els ug g es ts “ o ut rageous go v e r n m en ta l co n d u c t” as a se p ar at e d efe n se , bu t itis not one thi s ci rcui t r eco gni zes , se e U ni t e d S t a tes v. Van E ng el, 1 5 F .3 d 62 3, 63 1 (7 th C ir. 19 93 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. O l s on , 9 7 8 F
. 2 d 1 4 7 2 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) , a n d i n th e c i r c u ms t a nc e s w oul d ha v e c o me t o the s a me thinga s e nt r a pm en t. Fa i l ure to re m ake the defe nse a s o ne bas ed on entr apm ent was pl ai n er ro r by the c ourt, appel l ate counseli nsi st.N o. 10

- 2761 3 A pro posalthata dist ri c t j u dge m ust f or ce c ounsel to presen t an entr apm ent defense i s defecti ve at the l eve l ofbo th the or y a nd prac ti ce. W e s tar t with theo ry . Everycr i m i nal defendant has a r i ght, i n consul tat i on w i th co u n sel, to choo se a l i ne o fdefense. S ee U nited Sta tes v. G o nz a lez -Lo pez , 54 8 U.S

. 14 0, 15 0 ( 2006 )

. J ud ges m us t n ot i nter f er e. A s a r ule , j ud ges sho uld notev en i nqui r e why the de f en se f o l l o ws a pa r ti cul ara ppr o ac h. I nquir y m i ght bre ed dis tr ust be tw een l aw yerand cl i ent, w hi l e pr ovi ding the p ro secuto r w i th va l uabl e i nfo rm ati on th at he co uld noto btai n vi a di sco ver y. S ee Taylo rv. U nited Sta tes , 28 7 F.3d 65 8, 66 2 (7th C ir. 20 02 ). A fte r all, an accu sed ’s tri al strategy, an d the reaso ns f or i t, are cove re d by the at torney- cl i ent pr ivi l ege and the w or kpr od uct pri vi l ege . Per haps a j ud ge w oul d not e rrby re m i nd i ng defense co unsel thatexpl or i ng the poss ibi l i ty of an entrapm ent defense coul d hel p. But the j ud ge w oul d rar el y know eno ugh bef or e t ri alto advi se defe nse co uns elabo utthe b es t l i ne s o fa r g um en t

— and i t i s no t a j ud ge’ s j ob to ass i st one advocat e a t a nother ’ s e xpense. Gust i n’ s appe l l ate c o uns eldo no t co nt en d tha t th e j ud ge shoul d have m ade a sugge sti on b ef or e t ri al ; they thi nk tha t the ju d ge should have i nter vened att r i a l

. By then, however, defense strat egy i s s et, and the ri sk of d isrup tion (and i nc iti ng distru st) i s su bsta n t ial

. M ore than that: intro du ci ng ent ra pm ent a s a defense at tr i al no to nl y u nd e r mi ne s the de f e ns e p l a n b uta l s o h a nd s a w ea pon to the pros ecuto r. Fo r, wh en ent ra pm ent i s a t i ssu e, the pr ose cutorm ust e stabl i sh thatthe accused was predi spose d to com m i t the unl aw ful acts
. S ee Jac ob s on4 N o. 10

- 2761 v. U nited Sta tes , 50 3 U.S. 54 0 (1 992)

. To dem onst ra te predi sposi ti on, the pros ecuto r can i ntro du ce e vid en ce about the a ccused’ s char acte r an d cri m i nal hi sto ry, su b j ec ts th at ot h er w ise w ou ld be off lim its . See , e.g., U nited St at e s v. Bas t anipour, 41 F. 3d 1178 , 11 83 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94)

. Fe w defen dan ts wi l l i ng l y o penthi s do o r, a nd no de f en dan t w oul d want a j ud ge to i nvi te evi dence ofp re d isp osi ti on by i nj ecting ent ra pm ent into a ca se spontaneo usl y. These co nsi derat i ons l ead us t o concl ud e that i t ca n neverbe er ro r, l et al one pla i n er ro r, f ora d istr i ct j ud ge to perm i t defe nse counsel to om i t an entr apm ent defense. I fan e n trapm ent defense off er s the be st chance o f acquitt al, i ts om i ssi on co uld r efl ect i neff ecti ve ass i sta nce ofco unsel, but i t co uld notdem onstra te j udi ci al error. Gu sti n does not conte nd that hi s t ri all aw yerfurni shed su bstand ar d a ss i st an ce , a nd a t al l e ve nt s ana r g um en t al ong th es e lines i s be st re ser ved f ora col l ate ra l at tack

. Se e M a s saro v. U nited Sta tes , 5 3 8 U
. S

. 5 0 0 ( 2 0 0 3 )

. We have not f ou n d any appell ate deci si on, i n the hi sto ryo f th is nation’ s ju r ispru d en ce, holding th at a trialcou rt com m itted plain error by neglecting to i ns tru c t th e j ury o n a n e nt r apmentde f en se ne ve r r ai se d b y the de f en dan t orhi s l aw yer . Our ca se w i l l notbe the fi rs t. So m uch f ortheo ry . Pra cti ce i s e quall y di sp osi ti ve aga i nst G u st in’s curr ent a rgum ent. H e i s a m em bero f N ue st r a F ami l i a, a g an g ba se d i n no r th ern Cal i f o r ni a. The vi cti m w as a m em ber of the Sur eños , a gang fro m so u th e r n C a l i f o r n i a . T h e S u r e ñ o s a r e e n e mi e s o fthe N or teño s, a gang that h as a n all i ance with N uestr a F am i l i a. Gusti n conte nd s, and the pros ecuto r does not deny,N o. 10

- 2761 5 th at th e con stitut ion and de m ocrati c a ll y elected l ead ers h i p o f N u e s t r a F a m i l i a r e q u i r e i t s m e m b e r s t o k i l l me mbe r s o fthe S ur eñ o s o n s i g ht

— orbe ki l l ed them sel ves. ( That a cri m i nal ga ng has a co nsti tuti on a nd prac ti ces i nter nal dem ocr acy w oul d not be a surpri se to a r eader o f Pe te r T
. Le eson, TheInvi s i b l eHook: TheH i dde n Ec ono m ics of P ira tes 23

– 4 4 (2009). ) G us tin’s ap p ell ate law yers co nt en d tha t p ut ting a m embe r o fthe S ur eñ o s i n the sa m e ce l l a s Gust i n co m pel l ed hi m t o a tt ac ka nd thus shoul d be e quated to go ver nm entali nd ucem ent t o do so

. T h e fe d e r a l p r i s o n i n P e k i n, I l l i n o i s , w h e r e th i s c r i me occur re d, has e xperie nced confl i ct a m ong m em ber s o f diff er ent g angs. A ssi gni ng ea ch ga ng to i ts own ce llblock c ou l d reduce i nter
- gang vi ol ence, but at the e xpense of al l owing one gang to dom i nate each c el lbl ock

. Tha t no t o nl y woul d unde r cutthe aut hori tyo fthe war dena nd gu ar d s but al so w oul d i m peri l non- m em ber s o fga ngs, f ort h ey w oul d be i n host i l e t er ri tor y without a l l i es. Consi derat i ons such as th es e und er l ay an ar gum ent that th e Con st i tu ti o n f

or b i ds wh at Gu sti n’s appel l ate l aw yer thi nks i t requires : r ese rv in g cel lbl ock s f orm em ber s o f si ng l e g an g s, whi cha l so e nt ai l s se g r eg at i o n b y r ac e an d nati onalorig i n. Yet w e hav e hel d that the Consti tuti on l eave s t o the s ound d i scr eti on o fpri son offi cials how to deal wit h g an gs i n pri son. S ee D avi d K. v. La ne, 83 9 F
. 2d 1265 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88)

. S ee al so Johnson v. C alif ornia , 5 43 U
. S. 49 9 ( 20 05 ) ( r i sk of raci alv i o l en ce do es no t j us ti fy r o ut i ne racial segrega tion in prison ). Pe kin’s w ard en de cid ed t o sc atter gan gs’ m em bers thro ughout the ge nera l popula ti on, so thatany gi ven6 N o. 10

- 2761 gan g w as a m inority i n ea c h c e llblock. T he w ard en ’s pol i c y de a l t wi th the r i s k o f i nt e r - g a ng v i o l e nc e by tr yi ng to i denti fy th e m os t li kel y a ggr ess or s a nd vi cti m s, th en as sig n in g t h e a gg re ss or s t o s eg re ga tio n w h ile k ee pi ngthe po te nt i alv i ct i m s i n pr o te ct i ve c usto dy. The w ar den and guards al so tr i ed to nego ti ate tr uces b etween gangs . T h e w ar d en be liev ed th at a tr u c e w as in p lac e a t P ek in betw een th e Sureñ os an d th e N orteñ os. E ven so , b efore ass i gni ng the v ict im to a cel l with Gusti n, guar ds ask ed h i m w h e th e r th e a s s i g nme n tw o u l d c r e a t e a p r o b l e m. Gust i n de cl ar ed th atthe a ss i g nm en t w as ac ce ptabl e an d pl edg ed to r emai n pe ac eabl e. He broke tha t pr o m i se , a nd h is a p p ella te law ye rs co n te n d th at t h e g u ar d s s h ou ld h av e k n ow n th at h e w o u l d . M ay b e, bu t o u rs is n ot a su it by th e vi ct i m co nt en di ng th at th e g ua r ds vi o l ated the ei g h th a me n d me n tb y e x p o s i n gh i m t o a kn o wnda nger . S ee Far m e rv. Br e nna n , 511 U

. S. 825 (1994). Gu stin’s i nsi ste nce that e ver y guard m ust hav e known thathe was bo und to at tackhi s ce l l m ate co nfe sse s pr edi sposi ti on, wh i ch def eat s a ny ent ra pm ent defense. Gu stin’ s t ri all aw yero m i tte d thi s defense because i t had no pros pect of succes s, yet w oul d hav e opened the door to dam ni ng ev i denc e that w oul d have pai nted Gusti n as a pre datorwith a hi sto ryo fvi ol ence an d n o qualm bef or ehand or re pentance after w ar d. A nd i t w oul d not hav e done tr i al counselany goo d to ar gue s el f

- defe nse, duress , orany ofthe othe r j usti fi cati on defenses . I fGusti n fear ed tha t hi s c e l l mat e wo ul d a t t a c k hi m, he s ho uld have ra i sed the subj ect w ith t he guar ds. The l aw does notN o. 10

- 2761 7 p er m it a p re em p tiv e s tr ike w h en ot h er op tio n s a re av ailabl e. S ee U nited Sta tes v. B a iley, 444 U
. S. 394 (1980). A co ntenti on that the guards’ co nd uct was “o utra geo us” be ca us e th eykno w how mem be r s o fg an g s be ha ve , a nd th atthe gu ard s co m pel l ed Gust i n t o a tt ac kb y pl ac i ng hi m ne ara m embe r o fa r i va l g an g, i s th e so r t o fthi ng th at kid n ap p er s a n d t er ro ris ts p u t in d em an d n ot es . I t is not a l ega l ar gum ent; i t i s the opposi te ofo ne. A ki dn apper ma y wr i t e : “ P a y m e $ 5 m i l l i o n o r Iw i l l k i l l th e v i c t i m. T h e f a u l t w ill be y ou rs for re fu sa l to p ay . I f th e v ict im die s, yo u bring i t o n y ou rs el ves. ” Ter ro ri sts m ake si m i l arst ate m ents w hen theyi nsi st th at a nati on that f ai l s t o w i thdraw fr om disputed ter ri tor y i s “ re sponsibl e” f orthe deaths fro m the ter ro ris ts ’ act i on. Or s up pose a d ru g d ea ler w ire s h i m s e l ft o a b om b th at w ill d et on at e if he ev err efuses a drug deal, o r his c onfedera tes sa y that they w i l l bea t a nyone w ho does not tak e eve rypro fi tabl e o ff erand hand over50 % o ft h e ga i n. The deal er then s ays thati t would be “o utra geo us ” for an a gent to o ff erdr ug s, b ec au se the de al erj us t cou ldn ’ t r efus e. The i dea in a ny o fthe se s i tu at i o ns i s th ata pe r so n who m a k e s a s uffi c i e nt l y g r a v e a nd c r e dib l e thr e a t s hi fts to som eone el se the r esponsibi l i ty i fthatthreatis car ri ed out. This i s no t ho w the cri m i nal l aw w or ks

. A ki dn apper w h o kills h is v ict im w h en th e ra n so m is n ot p aid is gui l ty ofp re m edi tat ed m urder; he c annot conte nd that f ai l ur e to pa y i s en tr apm en t o r“ o ut r ag eo us g o ve r nm en t conduct” that excuses the ki l l i ng. So m eone w ho c om m i ts a c r i me wi l l i n g l y , wh e n th e o p p o r t u n i t y i s e x t e n d e d o n a si l verpl atter , m u st pay the penal ty. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v.8 N o. 10

- 2761 M urphy, 76 8 F
. 2d 1518 , 1524 (7 th C i r. 1985)

. G usti n cannot sh ift th e blam e to th e gu ar d s. P lac em en t of th e v i c tim i n Gu s t i n’ s c e l l ( or p er ha ps e v e n hi s c e l lb l o c k ) p l a y e d a causalr ol e, to be sure ; had Gu stin a n d h i s v i cti m al w ays been physi cal l y s eparated, the att ack coul d not hav e o cc ur r ed. One c ou ld equa l l y s aytha t a ba nk ’ s pl ac ement of m on ey in t elle rs ’ d ra w er s, ra th er th an a loc ke d va u lt, is r es po ns ibl e f o r b an kr o bb er y an d ex cus es the r o bb er, who c ou ld n ot tu rn d ow n t h e o p p or tu n ity . So to o w ith p eo p le w h o w alk on d es er te d s t r e et s a t n igh t: m ak in g on es elf ane as y t ar g etdo es no t ex cus e a m ug g i ng . W e a r e no npl us se d tha t Gust in’s a ppel l at e l awy er s co ul d thi nk othe rwis e. A FFI RMED

6- 7- 11