2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-15-2009 

# Unit ed S t at es of Ame ric a v

. P hi l lip M ontgome ry P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1077

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U nit e d S t at e s of Ame r ica v

. P hi l l ip M ont g ome ry " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1005. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1005H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge, U . S. C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng * b yd e s ig n a tio n . NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 1077 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. P HI L L I P M ONT GOMER Y, A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 07- cr - 00349- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G arr ettE . B r ow n, J r . , C hi ef J udge Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 23, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges , and R E ST A N I , J udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y15, 2009 )

OP I NI ONM o n tg o m e ryd o e s n o t ch a llen g e h is s e n ten c e o n a p p e a l. 1 T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s cas e pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231, and 2 w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. -2- B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge A ppel l antPhi l l i p M ont gom ery , a form erpol i ce of fi cer , w as convi ct ed bya j ur yof depr i vat i on of ci vi l r i ght s , cons pi r acyt o obs t ructj us t i ce, and one s ubs t ant i ve countof ob struct i on of just i ce. T he D i stri ctC ou rtsent enced M on t go m eryt o 2 4 m on t hs’ im p riso n m e n t. W e a re n o t p e rsu a d e d b yM o n tg o m e ry ’s a rg u m e n ts f o r re v e rsa l, an d w ill 1
a f f i r m. 2 I . Fac t ual Backg r ound B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yfort he part i es , w e pr es um e fa m i l i ar i t yw i t h t he fa ct s and
w ill r e c ite o n ly th e b a s ic u n d e rp in n in g s o f th is c a s e . Phi l l i p M ont gom eryfor m er l yw or ked as a pol i ce of fi ceri n A s bur yPar k, N ew J er s ey . I n February2003, w hi l e uns ucce s s ful l yat t empt i ng t o exec ut e an a r r es tw arr ant forJ onathan Thom as , a l ocal drug deal er , M ont gom erys t ol e Thom as ’ s expens i ve, di amond-s tudded w at ch. T hats ame day , M ont gom erygave the w at ch t o V i ct or A s h k e n a z i, a c lo s e f

ri e n d a n d lo c a l je w e le r, f o r s a f e k e e p in g . W i t h i n t h e n e x tc o u p l e o f d a y s , s e v e r a l p e o p l e , i n c l u d i n g Th o ma s ’ s mo t h e r , c a me i nt o A s hkenaz i ’ s j ew el r ys t or e t o as k w her e the w at ch had c om e fr om . A s hkenaz i cont act ed M ont gom ery , w ho t ol d hi m t hat“nobodycan know t he w at ch ca m e fr om [ M o n tg o m e ry ]” a n d th a t h e sh o u ld tell a n y o n e w h o a sk e d th a t th e w a tch w a s b ro u g h t inA tt hatpoi nt , unbeknow ns tt o M ont gom eryand R i ver a, t he w at ch w as i n t he 3 p o sses sion o f th e F B I. -3- b y“ so m e c h ick .” (S A 2 6 2 .) L a ter , M o n tg o m e ryh a d A sh k e n a z i p u rc h a se a d u p lica te w at ch s o t hathe coul d coverhi s t r acks . A s he expl ai ned t o A s hkenaz i : “i n cas e anybody
w ant s t o know , I have the w at ch, w hatdo I need a not herone for ?” (I d. at 26 3 . ) F o r sev era l y ea rs, the s tolen w atch rem aine d in the b ac k roo m o f A sh k en az i’ s j ew el r ys t or e. I n t he s um m erof 2006, how ever , t he FB I w as l ooki ng i nt o pol i ce corrupt i on i n A s bur yPar k, and s us pect ed M ont gom eryof i nvol vementi n i l l egal nar cot i cs . A s par tof i t s i nves t i gat i on, t he FB I obt ai ned author i t yt o w i r et ap M ont gom ery ’ s cel l ul art el ephone, and, havi ng hear d rum or s of the w at ch theft , s erved a su b p o en a o n A sh k en az i th at ask ed fo r i n fo rm ati o n ab o u t his de ali n g s w ith A sb u ryP ark p o lic e o f f ic e rs . A l t hough A s hkenaz i i ni t i al l ycont act ed M ont gom eryt o i nfor m hi m of the su b p o e n a , h e so o n b e g a n c o o p e ra tin g w ith th e F B I. D u rin g th e c o u rse o f th is cooper at i on, A s hkenaz i , w i t h t he enc our agementof l aw enfor cement , at t empt ed t o get M ont gom eryt o i ncr i m i nat e hi m s el f bydi s cus s i ng t he s t ol en w at ch overt he w i r et apped phone. A ppar ent l yconce r ned, M ont gom erys entE fr i n R i ver a, a fr i end and l at ercodefe ndant , i nt o A s hkenaz i ’ s j ew el r ys t or e t o r etr i eve the w at ch. R i ver a hande d A s hkenaz i a n o t e d e ma n d i n g t h e wa t c h , b u tAs h k e n a z i r e f u s e d t o h a n d i to v e r . La t e rt h a ts a me 3 eveni ng, aft erA s hkenaz i l eftw or k, M ont gom eryand R i ver a fol l ow ed hi m t o a l ocalT h e C o u rt sta ted in f u ll: 4 T he def

ens e of e nt r apmenti s notr ai s ed i n t hi s cas e and, t her efor e, I ’ m not pr ovi di ng an i nt erpr et at i on. T hati s notpar tof the ca s e. H ow ever , t he b u rd e n is a lw a y s o n th e p ro se c u tio n to p ro v e g u iltb e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt . T he bur den neve rs hi ft s t o a def endant , t he l aw neveri m pos es upon t he d efen dan ti n a cri m i nal cas e t he b urden o r dut yof ca l l i ng anyw i t nesses, o r pro d u cing an yev iden ce . T h e g o v ern m en t m u st pro v e e ac h an d ev ery e lem e n t as I h a v e in stru c ted to y o u , b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, i n o rd e r to obt ai n a convi ct i on. T hati s m yi ns t ruct i on t o y ou on t he thi r d ques t i on. -4- s uperm arket . O nce i ns i de, M ont gom eryconfr ont ed A s hkenaz i , and as A s hkenaz i exi t ed t he s uperm arketand w al ked t o hi s car , M ont gom eryand R i ver a s t ar ed hi m dow n i n an a lle g e d ly in tim id a tin g m a n n e r. A t trial, M o n tg o m e rytes tifie d th a t h e h a d in a d v e rte n tlytak e n th e w a tch , o n lyto re a lize late r w h a t h e h a d d o n e , an d p a n ick e d . H e d e n ied a n yin ten t to in tim id a te A s hkenaz i , ort o i nt er fer e w i th t he fe der al i nves t i gat i on. U ns w ay ed, t he j ur yconvi ct ed M on t go m eryon al l cou nts . II . A n a ly sis A . E n trapm en t D efense M ont gom eryfi r s tar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l ypr event ed hi m fr om ra is in g a n e n tr a p m e n t d e f e n s e . T h is a rg u m e n t is b o ls te re d b yth e f a c t th a t th e ju ry, s ua sp o n te , se n t a q u e stio n to th e C o u rt a sk in g : “S h o u ld w e b e c o n sid e rin g e n tra p m e n t w ith r egar d t o t he def

endant s and i f s o, can y ou pr ovi de us w i t h an i nt erpr et at i on of the l aw r egar di ng entr apment ?” ( SA 1395. ) T he C our ti ns t ruct ed the j ur yt hatentr apmenthad notbeen r ai s ed. 4(S A 1 3 9 5 .)

T he governm entpr oper l yconce des t hati tw r ongl yar gued att r i al thatt he entr apment 5 d e f e n s e w a s w a iv e d a s it w a s n o t b ro u g h t a s a n a f f ir m a tiv e p re tr ia l d e f

e n s e . ( See A p p e lle e ’s B r. 2 3 -2 4 .) -5- T he part i es hot l ydi s put e w hetherM ont gom eryevert r i ed t o r ai s e an e nt r apment d e f e n se a t trial, o r w h e th e r h e is m a n u f a c tu rin g a n e w iss u e o n a p p e a l. T h e re is confl i ct i ng evi dence on t hi s ques t i on, and w e dec l i ne t o w ade i nt o w hati s a s t i cky di s put e. E ven as s um i ng entr apmentw as r ai s ed, t he D i s t r i ctC our tact ed pr oper l yi n not

5 all o w ing itto b e p rese n ted to the ju ryb ec au se th e f ac ts of this case sim p lyd o n o t sup p o rt a n e n tr a p m e n t d e f

e n s e . E nt r apmenti s “bas ed on the not i on t hati ts erves no j us t i fy i ng s oci al obj ect i ve for th e G o v e rn m e n t to c re a te n e w c rim e f o r th e sa k e o f

b rin g in g c h a rg e s a g a in st a p e rso n it had per s uaded t o par t i ci pat e i n w r ongdoi ng. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Lakhani , 480 F. 3d 171, 17 7 (3d C i r. 20 07 ) ( ci t at i on s, qu otat i on s, and al t erat i on s om i t t ed). A n en t rapm ent defense “foc us es on t he def

endanthi m s el f: i f the def endantw as pr edi s pos ed t o comm i tt he cr i m e, t hen i tcannotbe s ai d t hatt he G overnm enti s r es pons i bl e. ” I d. at178. T hus , “[t ] he el ementof non- pr edi s pos i t i on t o comm i tt he off ens e i s t he pr i m aryfocus of an entr apmentdefe ns e. ” U n itedS ta tes v . Fe dro

ff , 8 7 4 F . 2 d 1 7 8 , 1 8 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). B ef o re an en t rapm ent defense an d co nco m i t ant i nst ruct i on are perm i ssi ble, “t he d efen dan tm ust pr oduce e vi dence of both non- pr edi s pos i t i on and i nducement[byt he G overnm ent ] . ” I d. M ont gom erypr es ent ed no s uch evi dence . T o t he contr ary , t he evi dence s how edM ont gom ery ’ s defe ns e w as nott hathe l acke d t he pr edi s pos i t i on t o comm i tt he 6 obs t ruct i on offe ns es , butr athert hathe di d notcomm i tt he off ens es atal l – i . e. , t hathe l acke d, as a fa ctual m at t er , t he i nt entt o obs t ruct . M ont gom ery ’ s cont ent i on w as t hathe in n o c e n tlyto ld A sh k e n a z i to g iv e b a c k th e w a tch , an d th a t h is c o n f ro n tatio n w ith A s hkenaz i w as noti nt ended t o obs t ruct . T he j ur yr ej ect ed thi s ver s i on of eve nt s , and the l ack of an entr apmenti ns t ruct i on di d noti m pede M ont gom ery ’ s pr es ent at i on of hi s cas e. -6- t hat , fr om t he begi nni ng, M ont gom eryw as pr edi s pos ed t o comm i tt he obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce c r i m es : he as ked A s hkenaz i t o hi de the true s our ce of t he w at ch; he obt ai ned a dupl i cat e w at ch t o confus e i nves t i gat or s ; he s entR i ver a t o gett he w at ch; and he f ol l ow ed a n d in tim id a ted A sh k e n a z i, a m a ter ial w itn e ss . A d d iti o n a lly , M o n tg o m e rya d m itt e d to th e F B I in a p ro f

f e r se ss io n w h a t h e in ten d e d to d o w ith th e w a tch if h e h a d b e e n a b le to o b tai n it : “I w o u ld h av e thro w n itin the o ce an . ” (S A 7 4 1 . ) M ont gom eryar gues t hatt he FB I s cr i pt ed A s hkenaz i ’ s phone conve r s at i ons , and t hathe i ni t i al l yt ol d A s hkenaz i t o gi ve the w at ch t o t he FB I . B utt hes e fa ct s do not s uppor tan entr apmentdefe ns e. E ven as s um i ng t hatt he evi dence s uppor t s a fi ndi ng t hat t he FB I s cr i pt ed A s hkenaz i ’ s conver s at i ons , s uch s cr i pt i ng s heds no l i ghton M o n tg o m e ry ’s p re d isp o sitio n (o r la c k th e re o f ). A d d iti o n a lly , tha t M o n tg o m e ryo n c e to ld A s hkenaz i t o gi ve the w at ch t o t he FB I i s noti ndi cat i ve of a l ack of pr edi s pos i t i on: t o t he c o n tr a ry, it is e n tir e ly co n s is te n t w ith h is o ri g in a l ru s e , i . e. , t hatt he w at ch ca m e fr om “so m e c h ick.” (S A 2 6 2 . ) 6 T he FB I di d noti nduce M ont gom eryt o comm i taddi t i onal cr i m es , butr ather i nv est i gated a cri m e al readycom m i t t ed. T he F B I obt ai ned t he co op erat i on of a w i t ness,M ont gom eryal s o ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n notgi vi ng t he j ur yan 7 i ns t ruct i on on s o- cal l ed governm ent al overr eac hi ng. T her e w as no err orher e: t he fa ct s do nots uppor tt he i s s uance of s uch an i ns t ruct i on, and, i n anyevent , t hi s i s s ue i s fora j udge, n o t a ju ry. S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . P itt , 193 F. 3d 751, 760 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( defi ni ng governm ent al overr eac hi ng defe ns e as w hen a “ defe ndant ’ s due pr oces s r i ght s have be en vi ol at ed bec aus e the governm entcr eat ed the cr i m e fort he s ol e purpos e of obt ai ni ng a convi ct i on, ” and not i ng t hati ti s “w el l - es t abl i s hed thatt he i s s ue of outr ageous g o v e rn m e n t c o n d u c t is f o r t h e c o u rt , a n d n o t th e ju ry, to re s o lv e ” ).

-7- and enc our aged the w i t nes s t o t r i ck M ont gom eryi nt o admi t t i ng i nvol vementw i t h t he
w at ch theft . T he fa ctt hatM ont gom ery , i n r eac t i on t o t he fe der al i nves t i gat i on, under t ook to o b s tru c t ju s tic e c a n n o t b e la id a t th e f e e t o f th e g o v e rn m e n t.

“ E n tra p m e n t is a ‘re lativ e lylim ited d e f e n se ’ th a t m a yd e f

e a t a p ro se c u tio n o n ly

‘ w hen the G overnm ent ’ s dece pt i on actual l yi m pl ant s t he cr i m i nal des i gn i n t he mi nd of t he def endant . ’ ” Fe dro

ff , 874 F. 2d at181 ( quot i ng U n itedS ta tes v . R u ss e ll , 411 U . S. 423, 436 ( 1973) ) . T he fa ct s of thi s cas e do nots uppor tan entr apmentdefe ns e, and i tw as not err orfort he D i s t r i ctC our tt o pr eventM ont gom eryfr om ar gui ng t he i s s ue. 7

B . E x cl usi on of

E x pert P s y chol ogi cal E vi dence M o n tg o m e rya lso a ss e rts th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in e x c lu d in g a re p o rt o n h is m e n tal h e a lth th a t th e d e f e n se p u rp o rte d lyso u g h t to u se to n e g a te th e m e n s re a e lem e n ts o f th e c ri m es. T h e re p o rtco n clud ed that M o n tgo m eryh ad p o st- tr au m ati c stress d isord er, pr obabl yhad an uns peci fi ed per s onal i t ydi s or der , and w as “l i kel ynotcapa bl e of o rg a n iz e d c le a r t h o u g h t” a t th e tim e o f th e o b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e . ( See A p p . 1 7 4 -9 1 .) T h e p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a tt h i s i s s u e i s g o v e r n e d b y U ni t ed Stat es v. P ohl ot , 827 F. 2d-8-

889 ( 3d C i r . 1987) . I n P ohl ot , w e hel d t hat“evi dence of m ent al abnorm al i t y ” s houl d be admi t t ed “onl yw hen, i f bel i eved, i tw oul d s uppor ta l egal l yacc ept abl e theoryof l ack of m ens r ea, ” i . e. , t hatt he ment al abnorm al i t yw oul d negat e the s peci fi c i nt entfort he c o m m is s io n o f

a c ri m e . I

d. a t 9 0 5 -0 6 . A lth o u g h th e re p o rt in q u e stio n is litt e re d w ith s w eepi ng l egal concl us i ons aboutM ont gom ery ’ s m ens r ea ( s ee A pp. 17 ( “The m ens r ea fora purpos eful actt o obs t ructj us t i ce i s hi ghl yques t i onabl e undert hes e ci r cumst ance s unl es s a s peci fi c w arni ng w as gi ven, t hen i tw oul d s t i l l be ques t i onabl e t o a l es s er d e g re e .” )) , th e s u b s ta n c e o f th e re p o rt d o e s n o t n e g a te th e m e n s re a f o r a n yo f th e c ri m e s . T he r epor tconcl udes t hatM ont gom erym ayhave s t ol en the w at ch t o s end a m es s age t o J onathan Thom as , t he drug deal er . W hi l e i nt er es t i ng, t hi s concl us i on does not n e g a te th e w illf

u ln e s s o f th e th e f t, b u t r a th e r m e re ly p o s its a d if f e re n t m o tiv e . A ddi t i onal l y , M ont gom ery ’ s pos t - t r aumat i c s t r es s di s or der , w hi ch the r epor tar gues for ecl os ed hi s abi l i t yt o engage i n “or gani zed c l eart hought ” ( i d. a t 1 9 1 ), d o e s n o t n e g a te th e in te n t to k n o w in g ly o b s tru c t ju s tic e . ( See SA 1210 ( j ur yi ns t ruct i on on m ens r ea f or obs t ruct i on) ( “A n acti s done know i ngl yi f i t ’ s done vol unt ar i l yand purpos el yand notby a c c id e n t o r m ista k e . A n a c t is d o n e w ill f u llyif d o n e v o lu n tar ilya n d in ten tio n a lly , w ith s peci fi c i nt entt o do s om ethi ng t he l aw forbi ds , t hati s w i t h bad purpos e, t o di s obeyor di s r egar d t he l aw . ”) ) A s w e s ai d i n P ohl ot , C r i m i nal r es pons i bi l i t ym us tbe j udged att he l evel of the cons ci ous . I f a p e rso n th in k s, p lan s a n d e x e c u tes th e p lan a t th a t lev e l, th e c rim in a lityo f h is actcannotbe deni ed, w hol l yorpar t i al l y , beca us e, al t hough he di d not r eal i ze i t , hi s cons ci ous w as i nfl uence d t o t hi nk, t o pl an and t o exec ut e theM o n tgo m eryalso arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rterred in it s resp o n se to tw o jury 8 ques t i ons , and i n i t s deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s t he w i r et ap evi dence . W e have re v iew e d th e se c o n ten tio n s a n d th e v o lu m in o u s re c o rd , an d c o n c lu d e th a t th e se a rg u m e n ts a re w ith o u t m e ri t. -9- p lan b yu n c o n sc io u s in f lu e n c e s w h ich w e re th e p ro d u c t o f h is g e n e s a n d h is lif e lo n g e n v ir o n m e n t. 827 F. 2d at906 ( quot i ng N ew Jersey v. Sikora , 2 1 0 A .2 d 1 9 3 , 2 0 2 (1 9 6 5 )) . N ow her e does t he r epor ti ndi cat e thatM ont gom eryw as notaw ar e ori n contr ol of hi s act i ons . B eca us e the r epor t ’ s obs ervat i ons ar e i nappos i t e t o t he narr ow i s s ue of mens r ea, w e w i l l aff

i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s excl us i on of the evi dence .

I I I . C oncl usi on Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof s ent ence . 8