## 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

- 2297 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . O NDRAYM cK NI GHT, 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 N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:07- cr-00263-4

—Rebec ca R. Pal lmey er, Judge
.
A RGUED S EPT EMBER29, 2011

— D ECIDED N OVE MBE R 22, 2011

Befo re R IPPLE, M A NI ON a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudg e . Afte r a f our- yea r i nvest iga tio n bythe Dr ugEnf o r ce m en t Ad m i ni st r at i o n ( “DEA ”) a nd the Ch i cago Pol i ce Dep ar tm ent, a gr and j ury i nd i cted Ondr ay M cKni g hta nd s i x c o defen dan ts f o r v ar i o us o ffen se s ar i si ng fr o m the o r g an i ze d di st r ibut i o n o fc o ntr o l l e d s u b s t a n c e s . Mr
. Mc Kn i g h twa s c h a r g e d wi th o ne count o fco nspir acy to dist ribute a co ntro l l ed substa nce, 21 U
. S. C. § 8 46, and two counts ofusi ng a com m unica ti on2 N o. 10

- 2297 f aci l i ty ( a t el ephone) to d istribute a co ntro l l ed substa nce, 21 U
. S. C. § 843(b)

. M r. M cK ni ght ple aded not g ui l ty, a nd a j ur y c o nv i ct ed hi m o n th e co ns pi r ac y a nd o ne o f th e co m m uni ca ti o n co unt s. H e was ac qui tt ed of th e o th e r c o mmun i c a t i o n c o u n t
. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t se ntence d M r. M cK ni ght t o 300 m onths ’ im pri sonm ent t o be f ol l owed bya ten- yea r ter m o fsuperv i sed r el eas e. I t a l so i mpo s e d a fi ne o f$ 1 , 0 0 0 , wh i c h i to r de r e d p a i d thr ough th e I nm ate Finan cial R esp ons ibi li ty Program ( “IFR P” ). M r . M cKni g htn ow a p p ea l s. He c l ai m s th ata j ur y i ns t r uc t i o n r e l a t i ngt o the Go v e r nme nt ’ s u s e o fde c e pt i ve i nvest i gat i ve pr ac tice s was i m properand confusi ng. H e also challenges th e d istri ct cou r t ’s order th at he pa rticipate in t h e IFRP
. W e con clud e tha t the district cou rt ac te d wi th i n i ts di sc r et ioni n g i vingthe i ns truct i o n a nd that, i n any even t, the instr ucti on was notprej ud i ci alto M r. M c K n i ght. Fur ther, the parti es cor re ctl y a gr ee that parti ci pati on in the I FRP i s v ol untaryand that the s entence m us t b e m o d ified in th at resp ect. A ccord ingly, w e affirm M r. M cK ni ght’ s co nvi cti on a nd m odi fy hi s s entence wi thr eg ar d t o the I F RP.

I

B AC KGR OUND A . Facts I n 200 3, a confi denti ali nfo rm ant pr ovi ded infor m ati on t o th e D E A th a tl e d t o a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n o fV i c t o r T h o mpson, a hi gh-ra n king m em bero fthe GangsterDis ci ple s gan g. T hom p son m an aged a dru g d istribu tion ne tw orkN o. 10

- 2297 3

Thom ps on’ s ne t work was b as ed n ea r the i nt er s ec t i on of 1 11 6th Stre etan d St ewar tAvenue , bute xt en ded s outh fro m 11 5th Street to 119 t h Street a nd east from H alsted Street to W entwo rth A venu e. that oper ate d i n a r esi denti alnei gh b or hood o n the south si de o fChi ca g o . Tho m pso n’ s ne two r ki nc l ude d v ar i o us 1 ot h er ind ivid u als

— som e g ang m em ber s, so m e no t

— who w or ke d as d ea ler s s ellin g h er o i n , c o c ain e b as e a n d m ar ij uana; suppli er s pro vi ding drug s either dir ectly t o deal er s or to Thom pson f or re packag i ng; and lookouts to w ar n other m em ber s o ft h e co nspir acy ofnearby pol i ce o fficer s. M em ber s o fThom pson’ s netw or k fre que nt l y c ar r i ed fi r ea r m s an d a l l eg edl y wer e i nv o l ve d i n, al th o ugh not i ndi ct ed f o r, the ft, r o bb ery, k i dna ppi nga nd othe r cri m es. D uring their f ou r-year inv estigation int o Th om p son ’s netw or k, DE A ag ents and offi cer s o fthe Ch i cago Pol i ce D ep artm ent g ather ed evi dence by usi ng te chniques that have beco m e co m m on in the drug co ntext: co nfi denti al inform an ts, u nd ercove r offi cers, controlled bu ys, su rve i l l an ce a nd wi r et apping . As pa rt oftha t eff o r t, the Gover nm ent obtained w i re tap wa rr ants i n 200 6 f or s e v e r a l p h o n e s , i n c l u d i n go n e b e l o n g i n gt o S h a wn Denton, wh o l ate r becam e the G ov ernm ent’ s chi efwitness i n thi s ca se. Law enf or cem ent a gents i nter cepted hund re ds ofphone ca l l s r el ate d to the c onspi ra cy. They al so c o nduc te d c o nt r o l l ed buy s f r o m numer o us m embe r s o fTho m pso n’ s ne two r k, i nc l ud in gDe nt o n, but none fro m M r. M cK ni ght.4 N o. 10

- 2297 T he i nv estigation en d ed i n 20 07, w ith th e G overn m en t’s fi l i ng a cri m i nal co m pla i nt ag ai nst e i ght ind i vi du als. A gr and j ury re turn ed a thi rty- count ind i ctm ent a gainst M r. M cK ni ght and s i x codefendants thati ncl ud ed char ges ofco nspir acy, nar cot i cs di str ibuti on, usi ng te l ep hones i n further ance o fthe conspi ra cy and w eapons offenses . Thom pson and M r. M cK ni ght’ s o therco defe nd ants accepte d p lea ag re em ents at var i ous points in the proceedi ngs. M r. M cK ni ght ple aded no t guil ty and procee ded to tria l.

B. Dist r i ctCourtPro ceedi ngs A t M r. M cK ni ght’ s t ri al, the Gover nm ent intro du ced the t e s t i mon y o fthr e e wi tne s ses : DE A Ag e ntF e r na nd o Cer vantes , who t es ti fi ed ab o utthe i nv es ti g at i o n o fthe Thom pson drug oper ati on; DE A chem i st Rober t Krefft, who te st i fi ed ve r y b r i eflya nd g en er al l y abo utc o ca i ne an d c o ca i ne b as e ( o r “ cr ac k ”) ; a nd De nt o n. De nt on, who had been ind i cted o n si x char ges , was coo perat i ng with th e Gov ernm en t i n e xc ha ng e for a f av o r ab l e se nt en cing r e c o mm e nd a t i o n. As the Go v e r nme nt ’ s p r i nc i pa l wi tness at tr i al, Denton pro vid ed t est i m ony about the Gangst er D isciples, T hom p son ’s dru g ope ration an d M r. M cKni ght’s spe ci fi c r o l e i n i t, a s w ell as hi s i nt er pr et at i o n o fthe w i re tap r eco rdi ngs. Den ton test i fi ed th atM r . M cKni g htb eg ans uppl y i ng Tho m pso n’s ne two r kwi thdr ug s i n 2 00 6. M r . M cKni g ht or i gi nal l y pai d Th om pson a w ee kly fee o f$1 , 500 to provi de Thom pson’ s deal er s w i th her oi n, co cai ne bas e and m ar ij uana. A fterthr ee m onths, Thom pson so ught t oN o. 10

- 2297 5

For exam ple, D enton tes ti fie d that the phrase “ o u r si de” 2 referre d to crac k. Tr ia l T r. vol. 2, 193, 203, O ct
. 6, 2009. Si m ilar l y, Dent on t es t i fi ed that“o n the othe r s i de” m ea nt h er o in , i d. at 202- 03, and “p ers onal” and “girl f ri end” w ere co d e w o rd s fo r a fire a rm , i d. at 221- 23. i nc r ea se hi s sh ar e o fthe pr ofi t byha vingM r . M cKni g ht supp l y hi m with whol esa l e quanti ti es ofher oi n, wh i ch he would then repackag e a nd di str ibute t o hi s deal er s. M r. M c K nigh t con tinu ed to sup p ly T hom p son ’s dea lers dir ectly with coc ai ne bas e a nd m ar ij uana. Dur i ngDe nt o n’ s di r ec t ex ami na ti o n, the Go ve r nm en t pla yed f orthe j ury ( and provi ded tr anscr i pts o f ) thi rtyseve n pho n e cal l s r el ate d to the c onspi ra cy. Denton tes ti fi ed that he and other m em b er s o fThom pson’ s net
wor ks po k e in c ode to a vo i d de te ct i o n b y po l i ce ; he deci phered thes e r eco rded conve rs ati ons f orthe j ury. 2 D en to n als o i d e n t i fied M r. M c K n igh t a s a p ar tic ip an t in tw enty- ei ght o fthe cal l s a nd a topi c o fco nver sati on in another seve n cal l s, al l of w h ich i m pli cate d M r. M cK ni ght in i l l ega l act i vi ty. The Gover nm ent a l so pla yed r eco rdi ngs fro m se ver al contr ol l ed buys in w hi ch an info rm ant purchas ed drugs fro m Denton whil e wearing a hi dd en m i cro phone. Den to n i d e n t i fi e d Mr
. Mc Kn i g h ta s th e s o u r c e o fthe drugs he so l d to the info rm ant in thos e t ra nsacti ons. Cou ns elf or M r . M cKni ghts o ug htt o unde r m i ne Denton’ s tes ti m ony as sel f

- ser vi ng and unrel i abl e. T h r o u g h o u t th e t r i a l, c o u n s e l f o c u s e d o n D e n t o n’ s c r i mi nal act i vi ti es and the f avo rabl e s entencing r eco m m enda-6 N o. 10

- 2297 tio n h e e x p ec te d to rec eiv e fro m th e G ov er n m en t in e xc ha ng e f o r hi s t e s t i mon y . M r . M c Kni g ht di d no t put o n an y e vid en c e. Dur i ngthe j ur y i ns truct i o n c o nfer en ce , the Go ve r nm en t pr o po se d the f o l l o wi ngj ur y i ns truct i o n: So m et im es the g ove rnm ent use s underco ver age nts a nd undercov er in f or m ants w ho m ay concea l thei r tr ue i denti ti es i n or der to i nvest i gat e suspecte d vi ol ati ons ofl aw . In the e ff or t t o detectvi ol ati ons ofthe l aw , i t i s s om eti m es necessar y forthe gov er nm ent t o use r uses, subte rfuges and e m plo y i nvest i gat i ve techni ques that decei ve. I t i s no t i m pr o pero r i l l eg alf o r the g o ve r nm en t to u se th es e t ec h n iq u e s , w h ich are a p er m iss ible an d r ec o g ni zed m ea ns o fc r i m i na l i nv es ti g at i o n. W he th er or not you ap p rove of such tech niq ue s[] sh o ul d not ent er i nt o y o u r d e l i be r at i o ns i n any w ay. R. 227 at 38. M r. M cK ni ght’ s a tto rneyo bj ecte d, conte nd i ng tha t the pr i nc i pa l c a s e o n whi c h the Go v e r nme nt r e l i ed to su p p or t th e in st ru c tio n, Lew is v. U nited Sta tes , 38 5 U.S

. 20 6 ( 1966), w as i napp osi te and that the defense had not cal l ed the G overnm ent’ s invest i gat i ve techni ques i nto q u es tio n . Th e G ov er n m en t re sp o n d e d , “Ju d ge , th is is in h er e be c au se , of cou rs e, th e gov er n m en t d id p u t o n e v idence ofw i re taps and u nd er cove r age nts and i nfo rm ants. A nd som e j urors h ave issu es w ith th e govern m e n t ’s use o ftho se techni ques i n gene ra l

. ” Tr i alTr. vo l

. 3, 39 4, O ct. 7, 2009
. W ithou t furth er discu ssion, the d istri ct cou rtN o. 10

- 2297 7

o ve r r ul ed th e o bj ec ti o n, s ta ting, “I hav e g i ve n thi s i ns t r u c t i o n b e f o r e . Id o n ’ tth i n ki t ’ s p a r t i c u l a r l y p r o b l e mati c. ” Id. The di st ri ct c ourti ncl ud ed the l anguage , with m i norte chnic aland gr am m ati caladj ustm ents, i n i ts fi nal i nstr ucti ons to the j ury. The j ury convi cted M r. M cK ni ght of conspi ra cy to distr ibut e a co nt r o l l ed su bs ta nc e an d o fo ne c o unto fus i ng a co m m unica ti on f aci l i ty to dist ribute a contr ol l ed substa nce. A fter denyi ng M r. M cK ni ght’ s m oti on f or j u d gm ent o facqu i tta l and subsequent m oti on f orr eco nsi derati on, the dist ri ct c ourtse ntenced hi m to 3 00 m onths’ i m pr i so nm en t f o r c o ns pi r ac y a nd 4 8 m o nt hs’ i m pr i so nm en t f o r t h e com m un ication cou nt, to be served conc urre n tly , fo l l owed bya ten- yea r ter m o fsuperv i sed r el ea se . The c o ur t fur th eri m p ose d a s pec i ala ss es sment of$2 00, due i m m edi ate l y, and a fin e of $ 1, 000 to be pai d fr o m pr i so n e arni ng s th r o ug h the I F RP.

II DI S C US S I ON M r. M cK ni ght r ai ses two ar gum ents on a pp eal

. Fi rs t, he cla i ms tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d b y g i v i ngthe Go ver nm en t’ s p r o p o s e d “ d e c e p t i v e i n v e s t i g at i ve t ec hniq ue s” j ury inst r u c t ion and that the error w as su ffi ci entl y s ubstanti alt o h ave prej ud i ced the outco m e o f his tr ial

. S eco nd , he c hal l enges the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s o rder th athe pa r ti ci pat e i n the I F RP.8 N o. 10

- 2297 A . Decepti ve I nvest i gat i ve Techn i qu es I nstructi on A t i ssue i s the i nstr ucti on that a dvis ed th e j u ry that decepti ve in vesti gat i ve techni ques ar e l aw ful and that f orbade j uror s fro m l ett i ng the i r perso nal di sapprova l o f such te chniques i nfl uence thei r del iberat ions i n any w ay. M r. M cK ni ght c onte nd s that the i nstr ucti on is n ot an ac cur at e st at emento fthe l aw a nd i s uns uppo r te d b y the re cor d. H e cl ai m s that g i vi ng the i n str ucti on prej ud i ced hi s defense by confusi ng the j ury abo u t its obl i gati o n t o e va l ua te De nt o n’ s cr edibi l i ty
. The Go ve r nm en t counter s that the i nstr ucti on i s s u p port ed by Lewis , 38 5 U .S. at 2 08 -09 , an d th at, in an y e ve n t, th e in st ru c tio n d id not prej ud i ce M r. M cK ni ght’ s defense. W e e ngage i n a l i m ite d rev i ew o fj ury i nstr ucti ons, asking on ly “ ‘i f th e instru ctions as a w hole w ere su fficie n t t o in for m th e jur y c o r re c tly of th e a p p lica b le l aw . ’ ” U nited Sta tes v. C urry, 538 F.3d 718 , 731 (7 t h C ir. 2008 ) ( quoti ng U ni t e d St at e s v. Woods , 148 F. 3d 843, 84 9 ( 7th C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) )

. “ We

. . . r e v i e w deno vo wh ethera parti cul ar i nstru c tio n w as appropri ate as a m att ero fl aw . ” U nited Sta tes v. B o rrasi, 6 39 F
. 3d 774, 7 81 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1)

. “ ‘ I fthe i ns truct i o ns a r e ade qua te l y s uppo r te d b y the re co r d a nd ar e f ai r and accu ra te s um m ar i es ofthe l aw , the i nstr ucti ons w i l l n ot be disturbed o n appeal

. ’ ” C urry, 538 F. 3d at 731 ( q u oting U nite d State s v. Lanz otti, 20 5 F
. 3d 951, 95 6 (7t h C ir. 20 00) )

. W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o g i ve a pa r ti cul ari ns truct i o n f o r a n abuse o fdi sc r et i o n, U nited S t a t e s v . Ta nn er, 628 F.3d 890 , 904 (7th C ir. 2010), aff or ding sub sta nti aldi scr eti on t o i ts choi ce o fwording, U nite d State s v. N oel, 581 F

. 3d 490, 499 (7th Cir. 2009).N o. 10

- 2297 9 Re ve r sa l i s war r an te d “ o nl y i f ita ppea r s bo ththa t th e j u r y wa s mi s l e d a n d th a t th e i n s t r u c t i o n s p r ej u d i c e d t he defe nd ant. ” C urry, 5 3 8 F .3d at73 1; see also B o rrasi, 63 9 F. 3d at 781.

1. M r . M cKni g htc o nt en ds th ato urde ci si o n in U nited Sta tes v. Chi l ds , 4 4 7F
. 3 d 5 4 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) , de mon s t r a tes that the j ury i nstr ucti on in questi on i s a n i naccurat e sta tem ent o fthe l aw . H e s ubm i ts Chil ds as suppo rt f or the pr opos itio n that the j ury m ay consi der the i nvest i gati ve techni ques o fl aw enf or cem ent in i ts de liberat i ons. W e can not accep t this read ing of Chil ds

. I n Chil ds , the Gover nm ent r el i ed on the testi m ony of se ve r ali nf o r m an ts who , a fte r pur ch as i ngdr ugs in c o ntr o l l ed buy s atthe b eh es t o fl aw en for ce m en t, ha d c o nce al ed so m e o fth e d r ug s f o r the i r o wn us e. Al th o ug h the pr o se cut o r kne w ofthi s wel l in a dva nc e o ftrial, the Gover nm en t fa i l ed to shar e that i m peachm ent info rm at i o n w i th th e d efe n d an t b efo re tria l. Id. a t5 4 2

- 4 4
. We he ld th at th e pros ecu tor had f ail ed to turn over Brady m at er i al, b utc o nc l ude d tha t th e defen dan t was no t pr ej ud ice d by th e fa ilu re . Id. at 545. Desp ite the p rosecu tor’s co m pl i ci ty, the i nf o r m ati on ca m e o uta t tr i al, a nd the defen dan t was abl e to use itt o i m pea chthe Go ve r nm en t’s w i t n e s s e s . Id

. The i ssue ofwh etherthe j ury can consi der the Governm ent’ s use o fdecepti ve i nvest i gat i ve te ch ni que s si m pl y was no t be f o r e us i n Chil ds

. The Go ve r nm en t r el i es pr i m ar i l y o n Lewis , 3 85 U
. S. at 20 8- 09 , t o suppo r t th e l eg ala cc ur ac y o fthe i ns truct i o n.10 N o. 10

- 2297 I n Lewis , the Suprem e Cour t hel d that a federa l na r c o t i c s a g e n td i d n o tv i o l a t e th e F o u r th Ame n d men t w h en h e m i sr epres ented hi s i denti ty and conducted anunde r co ve r pur ch as e o fna r co ti cs fro m the de fen dan t inth e d efe n d an t’s h om e. Id. a t2 0 6

- 0 7
. T h e S u p r e me Court note d that “i t has lo ng been acknow l edged .

. . that, i n the de te ct i o n o fmany ty pes o fc r ime, the Go ve r nm en t i s e nti tl ed to use decoys and to co ncealthe id en tity o f i ts age nts. ” Id

. at20 8- 09 ( i nter nal ci tat ions and fo otno te om itt ed ); see also U nited Sta tes v. P eters , 1 53 F. 3d 445, 46 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( Easterbro ok , J. , co ncurr i ng) ( “Pol i ce engag e i n decei t al l the ti m e i n or der to i nd u c e s u sp ects to r ev ea l e vi den ce. . . . De ce pti o n pl ay s ani m po r ta nt an d l egitim ate role in law enforcem en t.”)

. W e be l i eve thatthe Gover nm ent’ s p osi ti on i s co rr ect. Altho ug h Lew is did notaddress speci fi cal l y j ury i nstr ucti ons, w e b eli eve the Suprem e Cour t’ s ho l ding m ake s qui te c l ea r tha t th e st at emento fl aw c o nt aine d i n the i nstr ucti on be f or e us i s co rr ect.

2. W e now turn to M r. M cK ni ght’ s furth er contenti on th at th e in st r uct i o n, e ve n i fa c o r r ec t st at emento fthe l aw , was not appropria te i n the conte xt o fthi s ca se. I n M r. M cK ni gh t’s vie w , th e in st ru c tio n ba rr ed th e j ury f r o m evaluat ing full y the cred ibi li ty of D en ton ’s te st i m o ny abo utThompso n’ s o per at i o ns a nd abo utthe m ea ni ngo fc o ded te l eph one c al l s r ec o r ded dur i ngthe in ve st iga tio n . H e su b m its th at th e ins tr u c tio n e f f ec tiv elyN o. 10

- 2297 11 per m i tt ed Den to n t o l i e abou t Tho m pso n’ s o per at i o ns an d ab o u t th e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e p h o n e c a l l s . The j ur y was pr o hibi te d fr o m c o ns i der i ng, M r . M cKni g ht co nt i nue s, tha t Den to n c o ul d ha ve b ee n l y i ngabo utthe i nter preta ti on o ftho se cal l s be cause hi s interpret ati on was a l so pa r t o fthe i nv es ti g at i o n. For its p ar t, the Gover nm ent t ake s the vi ew that th e d istri ct cou rt sim p ly r e cogn ized that the j urors w ere awar e o fthe de ce pti ve t ec hni que s empl oyed bythe Gover nm ent a nd thatsom e j uror s m i ght b e e xpected to ha ve ne gative o pi ni o ns abo utthe Go ve r nm en t’ s en gag i ng i n such p ra c ti ces. I t co ntends thatthe dist ri ct co ur t ac ted wel l wi th i n i ts di sc r et i o n in g i vingthe i nstr ucti on in or der t o ensure thatthe j uror s underst ood that thei r disa pp ro valo fthe Gover nm ent’ s m et h odol ogi es w as not re l evantto thei r tas k. W e a pp ro ach o ur r evi ew o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s d ec i si on m i nd ful that tai l or i ng j ury i nstr ucti ons to ensure that the c ase is s ubm i tte d to the j ury i n a fulland f ai r m anner i s a qu in te ss en tia l ta sk of th e t ria l co u rt
. See N o el , 58 1 F. 3d at 49 9 (“ W e . . . gi ve the di str i ct c ourtsubst anti al di sc r et i o n t o f o r m ul at e th e i ns tructi o ns . . . . ”)

. The j ud i ci al offi cerwh o presi des o verthe enti re tr i alpro ceedi ngs, o bser ves the w i tness es, hear s the subst ance an d to ne o f co uns el s’ ar g um en ts an d bo th wat ch es a nd ass es se s the j ury’ s r eact i ons i s in the bestposi ti on t o d eterm ine th e nee d f o r , a nd the sc op e of, any ca ut ionary in st ru c tio n s w ith res p ec t t o th e e vid en c e. See C urry, 53 8 F. 3d at 728. W e t hi nk that the deci si on as to w hether to gi ve th is parti cul ari nstr ucti on i s esp ecial l y withi n the province12 N o. 10

- 2297

The r el eva nti ns t ru c t i ons i n Shi el ds w er e a s fo llo w s: 3 The go vernm ent has of fered evidence i n the f orm oft ape reco rd i ngs ofc onve rs at i ons with the defen d an ts. T he se reco rd ing s w ere m ad e w itho u t the k no w ledge ofthe defen dant s , but( 1) e i the r with the c ons en t and a gr ee m en tofon e or the othe r par t ies to the c onver s at i ons , ( 2) by o rde r ofa j udge i n thi s bui l di ng. T he use o f the se p ro ced u res to g ath er ev id en ce is p erfectly law ful an d the g ov ern m en t is en title d to u se the tape re cordings i n thi s cas e. * * * You have he ar d t es t i m ony f ro m a c oope ra t i ng w itness w ho w as em ployed by the governm ent in an (co n tin u ed ...) ofthe presi ding tr i alj u d ge . T here wil l be ti m es w hen c i r c ums t a nc e s a r i s i ngdu r i ngt r i a l wi l l c o un s e l i n f avo r ofgi vi ng such a n i nstr ucti on. S om e o fthes e o ccurr ences m ay be per ceptibl e t o us fro m th e tr i alr eco rd; o ther s, such as the f aci alexpre ssi ons ofthe j uror s o r sim i l ar m ani fest ati ons of di sapprova l, wil l be apparent onl y t o th e t ria l j u d ge . A t t im es , circ u m st an c es gro u n d ed in re cent l oca l ev ents orl oca l cul ture , o fw h i ch the tr i al j udg e i s es pec i all y co g ni za nt, s i m i l ar l y mightmake the giving of su ch an instru ction p rud en t. A tri al court ’s o bl i g at i o n inc l ude s t ak i ngno te o fa l l s uchs i tu at i o ns a nd a c t i ngt o p r e s e r v e the i nt e g r i t y o fthe r e c o r d. A s the Gover nm ent no tes , thi s type o fi nstr ucti on i s no t ne w to thi s Ci r cui t. In U nit e d S t at e s v. Sh i e l ds , No
. 9 0 CR 1044, 1992 W L 4323 9 (N

. D. I l l

. Feb. 20 , 19 92) , J ud ge Rovner gave a si m i l ari nstr ucti on and, o n a p os t- tr i alm oti on 3N o. 10

- 2297 13

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 under c ov erc apa c i t y. The re i s no thi ng i m pro per or illega l w ith th e g ov ern m en t u sing these tech niq u es. Indee d, c er t ai n types ofe vi denc e would be e xt rem ely d ifficu lt to d etect w itho u t the u se of such w itnesses. W hetheror not you app rove ofthe use ofund erc over work t o de fec t[ s i c : det ec t ] un law ful ac t i vi t i es i s no t to e nter i nto your deliberat ions i n an y w ay. Ifyou are satisfi ed b ey on d a rea son ab le d ou b t that th e d efend an ts com m i t t ed the offen s es c har ge d i n the i ndi c t m en t, the ci rcum st ance that the governm ent m a d e use ofund erc ove r work i s i rr el eva ntt o yo ur det er m i nat i on. U ni t ed Sta t es v. Shi el ds , 9 0 C R 1 0 4 4 , 1 9 9 2 WL 4 3 2 3 9 , a t* 1 9 ( N. D. Il l. F eb . 20 , 19 9 2 ) (alt er a tio n s in o ri g in a l). The parti es h ave identi fie d no app el lat e c ase w here a s im il ar 4 ins tr ucti o n h as been evaluated agains t a si m il ar c hall enge. The c l os es ti ns t ru c t i on appe ar s t o be i n Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Car o na , (co n tin u ed ...) f oracqui tta l, deter m i ned that the instr uct ion w as appropri ate bec ause [ t] he de fen dan ts the m se l ve s te nd ed to pl ac e th e pr op rie tyo fthe g o ve r nm en t’ s i nv es ti g at i ve t ec hni qu e s i n i s s ue att r i a l thr o ugh the i r r e pe a t e d ad hom inem at ta c ks u p on [th e G ov er n m en t’s co op er ati ng witne ss] , r efer ences to hi m bei ng “pr ogr am m ed” by the gov er nm ent, and descr i pti on o f [ a l aw sui t fi l ed by the F BI to fe rret out cor rupti on inth e Illino is jud icia l sys te m ] as a “p h on y c as e.” Id

. a t * 19

. In Shi e l ds , the de fe nd a ntc ha l l e ng e d the Go v-

414 N o. 10

- 2297

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 6 3 0 F .3d 91 7, 92 4 (9t h C ir . 20 1 1 ), amended by No. 0 9

- 5 0 2 3 5 , ___ F. 3d ___, 2011 W L 5041911 ( 9th Cir

. O ct
. 25, 2 011) , i n w hich the j ury w as inf orm ed “that the gov ernm ent ‘is n o t prec luded f ro m e nga gi ng i n s t ea l th a nd dec ept i on, su ch a s the us e of inf orm ants , i n order to apprehend p ers ons w ho hav e engaged i n c ri m i nalac t i vi t i es . ’ ” Th e defen danti n Car o na had alle ged prosecut or ial m is condu ct, s pecific all y, thata c onfi dential i nf or m antw as us ed t o o bt ai n i nf or m at i on f ro m the defen dant after the d efend an t retain ed an att o r n e y to rep resen t him du ri ng the invest igat ion and prosecut ion. The appell ate co u rt f ound thatthe re was no m i s conduct, an d, the re f or e, thatthe dist ri ctcourt did not abuse i ts di sc ret ion i n li m it ing the defend an t’ s re qu est to intro d u ce ev id en ce of the a llege d m isc onduc t
. The Ninth Ci rc ui the l d thati twas “[ s ] i m i l ar l y” not an ab u se of d iscretion f or the d ist r i c t c ou rt in th at ca se to i ns t ruct the j ur y thatthe Gover nm en tm ay l awful l y e nga ge in d ec ep tiv e i n v es tig a tio n te ch n iq u es . Id. er nm ent’ s use o fdecepti ve i nvest i gat i ve tec hniques. That fac tor no doubt c onst i tuted a m or e obvi ous c ase f or j udi ci alg ui d an ce t o the j ur y . Ye t th e ab se nc e o fs ucha f ac to r i n the pr es en t ca se do es no t, o f cou r se , abs o l ve the pr es i di ngj udi ci aloffi ce r fr o m de ci di ngwhethe r the j ur y ’ s k no wl edg e o f th e us e o f su ch te ch ni ques m i g ht affect the integr i ty ofthe j ury’ s del iber ati ons. A t fi rs t g l ance, i t m ight appear that the deci si on t o give this in stru ction w ou ld be a rath er straightforw ard o ne . Af te r a l l, the t ec hni que s empl o y ed bythe Go vernm ent in thi s ca se ar e co m m on invest i gat ive pract i ces,N o. 10

- 2297 15

See, e . g. , L ew i s v. U n i te d S tat es , 38 5 U .S. 2 0 6 , 20 9 (19 6 6 ) (“[I ]n 5 the d etectio n o f m a n y typ es of crim e, the G ov ern m en t is en tit le d to u se d ec o y s a n d to co n ce a l th e id en tit y o f its a g en ts.” ); se e a lso U n i te d S tat es v. R ogers , 587 F. 3d 816, 818 ( 7th Cir

. 2009) ( de s c r ibi nga po l i c e o ffi c e r pr e t e nd i ng, o ve r the I nt e r ne t, t o be a 13 -yea r-old to g ath er ev id e n c e o f a d efend an t’ s attem p ts to en tic e a m in o r t o en g a g e i nsex u a l a ct iv ity ); U n i te d S tat es v. Watso n , 52 5 F
. 3d 5 83 , 58 5- 86 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08 ) ( d iscuss i ng the F B I’ s use o f an inform an t to elicit incrim i n a t ing statem en ts fro m a r o b b er y su sp ec t); U n i te d S tat es v. Balist ri eri, 779 F. 2d 1191, 1206- 0 7 ( 7th Cir

. 1985) ( noti ng the use ofconfidenti al inf orm ants , surveil lance , und erc over law enfor cem ent, w ir et aps an d surre pt i t i ous r ec or di ngs i n a n o rg ani ze d cr i m e i nvest igat ion)

. Further, l aw enf o rcem ent of fic ial s are perm it ted to, and often d o, u se “ strateg ic d ecep tion ” to elicit con fessi on s. Il l i no i s v. Pe rk i ns , 4 9 6 U. S

. 2 9 2 , 297 (19 9 0 ) ( “ Pl oy s t o m i s l e a d a susp ect or lull him into a false sense of secu rity th at d o n ot rise to th e l e v e l o f com p u lsion or co ercio n to spe ak are n ot w ithin M i ra nda ’s co n ce rn s.” ); seeal so U n i te d S tat es v. M on tgom ery , 555 F. 3d 623, 632 ( 7th Cir

. 2009) ( “[ P]r ece dent holds that a polic e office r m ay ac t i vel y m i s l ea d a s us pec tpr i or t o o bt ai ni ng a statem en t or co nf e ss ion so lon g as a ratio na l d ecision [ to co n fes s] re m a in s p o ssi b le .” (in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itt ed )). us ed to i nv es ti g at e al l manne r o fc r i m es . S ucht ec h- 5 ni qu e s a r e p a r t i c ul a r l y p r e v a l e nti n de a l i ngwi th “ or ganized crim inal activit ie s th at are ch aract erized by covert deal i ngs with vi cti m s who ei thercannot o r do not protes t. ” Lewis , 38 5 U.S

. at21 0. N ar cot i cs t ra ffi c kin g is a “pri m e e xam ple

. ” Id

. S urr epti ti ous invest i gat or y pr acti ces are frequ en tly u sed to ga th er eviden ce of the m an ufac tu re16 N o. 10

- 2297

See, e . g. , U ni t ed Sta t es v. C hi l ds , 447 F. 3d 541, 542 ( 7th Cir

. 2006) 6 (“ A s i s fa i r l y c o m m o n i n d r u g c a se s, a p a r t o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t ’s evi denc e . . . c am e f ro m c odefen dant s who flipp ed on [ the de fe nd a nt ] a nd c on fi de nt i a l i nfor m a nt s who m a de c on t r ol le d b u y s o f d ru g s fro m [th e d efe n d a n t] o r h is c o h o rt s.” ); see al so Un i t ed Sta t es v. Fre eman , 650 F. 3d 673, 67 6 (7 th C ir
. 2011) (discu ssing a d ru g inv estiga tion inv olv ing “v id eo surv eillance , garbage p ull s, contr oll ed b uys, and confid enti al inf orm a n ts” ). ordi str ibuti on ofcontro l l ed substa nces. G i ven the pre va- 6 l ence ofdecepti ve i nvest i gat i ve pract i ces, i t m ight be ar gu ed th at an in st ru c tio n on th eir p er m iss ibilit y s h ou ld be gi ven as a m att er of cour se. There c an be n o doubt tha t, i n s o me i ns t a nc e s , the i ns t r uc t i o n c a n s e r v e a s a useful, o r ev en nece ssa ry, to olto f ocus the j ury on i ts tas k a nd to rem i nd i t that, l i ke the pr esi ding j ud ge, i t has no r oving co m m i ssi on t o express d isa pp ro valo fl aw enf or cem ent t echn iques that a re acc eptabl e under est abl i shed l ega l pri nci ple s. T h e r e a r e , h o we v e r, c o u n t e r v a i l i n gc o ns i d e r a t i o n s . We have re cogni zed , f ori nstance , thatthe gi vi ng o funnecessar y instr ucti ons ra i ses the d i stinct poss ibi l i ty ofcl utter i ng the i nstr ucti ons tak en as a w hol e a nd , co nsequentl y, defl ec tingthe jur y ’ s at te nt i o n fr o m the mos t i m po r ta nt as p ec ts of its ta sk

. Se e, e . g. , U nite d Sta te s v. H il l , 25 2 F
. 3d 919, 923 ( 7th Cir

. 2001 ) ( “U nl ess i t i s necess ar y to gi ve ani ns truc ti o n, i t i s ne ce ss ar y no t to g i ve i t, s o tha t th e im p ortan t instru ctions stan d out an d a r e rem em bered

. ”). There i s a l so a pos sibi l i ty that si ngli ng o ut thi s a spect ofthe case m i ght b e i nter prete d by the j uror s a s a t l eas tN o. 10

- 2297 17 i ndi r ec t appr o va l o fthe e ffec ti ve ne ss o fthe Go ve r nm en t’ s m an ag emento fthe i nv es ti g at i o n. The deci sio n a s to w hetherto gi ve an i nstr ucti on s uch as the o ne i n questi on, o f c ou rs e, m ust be the product o f an affi rm ati ve act ofj ud i ci aldi scr etion
. Our di ffi cul ty he re i s that the di str i ct c ourtdi d not e l abor ate o n i ts reason s for givi ng the inst ruc tion. I t is clear, how ever, th at th e c ou rth ad th e o p p o r t u n i ty to foc u s o n th e p os sibi l i ty ofj urorprej ud i ce fro m the Gover nm ent’ s use o f w iretaps i n it s inv estigation u p on th e G overn m en t’s ear l i ersubm i ssi on o fa m oti on t o f orbi d defens e co unsel fr o m s ug g es tingj ur y nul l i fi ca ti o n b as ed o n “ [ o ] ut r ag eo us Gov ernm en t [ c] o nduc t. ” R. 22 9 at 6. I n c o ns i der i ngthe in st ru c tio n in q u es tio n , t h e c ou rtw as ale rt ed sp ec ifica lly to the Gove rnm ent’ s s pec i fi c co ncer n abo ut the effect ofwir eta p evi dence. A l th ough the r eco rd pro vi des ve ryl i ttl e a ffi rm ati ve i nf o r m at i o n o n the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r ea so ni ngf o r g i ving th e instr ucti on in questi on, we see nothi ng i n this re cor d to i nd i cate thati ts deci si on t o gi ve the i n st ru c tio n constitut es a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. As Mr. M cKni g ht f or cefully a rgues, Denton’s tes ti m ony w as centr alto th e G o vern m en t’s case. W e d o not sh are, how ever, M r. M cK nigh t’s conc ern th at j urors m ight ha ve u nd ersto od the chal l enged instr u c tion to m ean that they m us t t ak e Den to n’ s te st i m o ny a t f ac e va l ue . F i r st, the dist ri ct c ourtexpl i ci tl y instr ucted th e j uror s that Dento n w as “h op in g t o re c eiv e b en efit s fro m th e g ov e r n m en t[,] nam el y, a re d uced sente nce in thi s ca se” and that they sh o ul d “ g i ve the te st i m o ny o fM r . De nt o n s uchwei g ht18 N o. 10

- 2297

W e no te thatDent on s ol d drugs t o a c onfi dent i al i nf or m ant 7 on s eve ra l o ccas i ons . How eve r, thi s ac t i vi t y m ake s Dent on a targ et of the G ov ern m en t’ s inv e st i g a tion , no t an accesso ry to th e G o v er n m en t’s su b te rfu g e. as [ th ey ] fe el i t dese rv es, ke epi ng i n m i nd thati t m ust be consi dere d w ith cauti on a nd gr eatcar e. ” Tr i alTr. vo l

. 4, 458, Oct. 8, 2009. T hi s ins tr ucti on undersco re d i nfo rm ati on th e j ur y a l r ea dy ha d b ee n pr o vi ded; De nt o n t es ti fi ed ab o ut the t e r ms o f hi s de a l wi th the Go v e r nme nt o n b oth dir ect and cro ss- exam i nati on, and M r. M cK ni ght’ s cou nsel questi oned hi s cr edibi l i ty re peate d l y a nd ag gr ess i vel y. Se cond, the chal l enged instr ucti on r efer s t o “und er cove r age nts a nd undercoveri nfo rm ants w ho m ay concea l th eir tru e id en tit ies ” a n d to “ru se s, su b t e r fu g es , an d

. . . i nvest i gat i ve techni q u es thatdecei ve. ” Id. at46 5- 66. Denton w as nei th er an underco verag ent no r an i nfo rm ant, n or d i d he ass i st i n any Gover nm ent ruse o r su bt er fug e. He was a r r es te d f o r hi s r o l e i n the c o n-

7 spi ra cy and c oo perat ed onl y a fterthe Gover nm ent had co nc l ude d i ts i nv esti g at i o n a nd i ni ti at ed th e pr o se cuti ons. W e there f or e ca nnot co ncl ud e that the chal l enged i nstr ucti on prej ud i ced M r. M cK ni ght’ s defense.

B . C o mp e l l e d P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e I F RP A t s entencing, the dis tr i ct c ourti m posed a fi ne o f$1 , 000 and di re cted M r. M cK ni ght to m ake paym en ts thr ough th e IFR P . B ec au se M r. M c K n igh t d id n otch alle n g e th is p o r t i o n o fh i s se nt e n c e b e f o r e th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t, we re vie w for p lain err or . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. M uno z , 61 0 F
. 3dN o. 10

- 2297 19 989, 99 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) . T h e G ove rnm ent c oncedes that se n te n c in g M r. M c K n igh t to p ar tic ip at e in th e IFR P co n st itutes pl ai n er ro r. W e a gr ee. W e hav e desc ribed the I FRP as a pro gr am und erw h ich st affm em ber s fro m the Bu re au of Priso ns as si st i nm ate s in devel opi ng pl ans t o m ee t th ei r fi na nc ia l o bl i g at i o ns . S ee 2 8 C. F
. R. § 5 45. 10. Inm ate s who do notpart icip at e m ay l o s e a n u mb e r o fp r i v i l e g e s i d e n t i fi e d i n 2 8 C

. F
. R. § 545.11(d ), w hich i nc lud e pa rtici p ating in [a cer tain] pri son j ob traini ng pro gr am , furl oughs, and o utsi de w or k detai l s, and hav i ng highe r com m is s ary sp en d ing li m its, acces s to highersta tus ho usi ng, and acce ss to com m unity-base d prog ra m s. U ni t e d Sta t e s v. Boyd, 6 0 8 F
. 3 d 3 3 1 , 3 3 3 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 )

. We ha v e h e l d tha tthe I F RP i s a v o l un t a r y p r o g r a m, a nd , ther ef or e, an o rderco m pel l in g a n i nm ate ’ s par ti ci pati on is pla in e r ro r. Se eM uno z , 610 F.3d at99 7; Boyd, 60 8 F. 3d at 334 ( “The I FRP can be an i m port ant par t o f a p ris on er ’s e ffor ts to w a r d reh ab ilita tio n, bu t s tr ict ly sp ea kin g, p ar tic i p at ion in t h e p ro gr am is vo lu n ta ry . . . . [ A ] n i nm ate i n the Bu re au of Pri sons’ custo dy m ay lo se ce r ta i n pr i vi l eg es by n ot par ti ci pat i ngi n the I F RP, b ut th e inm ate’s p articipation can not be com p ell ed

. ”). T o c or re c t t h is e rro r, M r. M c K n igh t re q u es ts o n ly m od ifi cati on o f h i s s entence
. S uch acti on i s co nsi ste nt with M uno z a nd Boyd

. In both case s, we m odi fi ed the sente nce ra therthan re m anding i t t o the di str i ct c ourt
. M uno z , 61 0 F.3 d at99 7; Boyd, 6 08 F
. 3d at3 35. W e a l so modi fy the20 N o. 10

- 2297

se nt en ce he r e bys tr i k i ng the mandat o r y r equi r ement th atM r . M cKni g htpa r ti ci pat e i n the I F RP.

Conclusi on W e co ncl ud e that the di str i ct c ourtdi d not com m it re v e r s ib l e e r r o r b y i s s uingthe de c e pt i v e i nv e s t i g a t i ve p ractices j ury inst ruc tion in this case. W e th e r e fore affi rm M r. M cK ni ght’ s co nvi cti on. H owever, the district court s h ou ld n ot hav e orde red M r. M cK nigh t’s p ar tic ip a t i o n in t h e IFR P . A c c or d in gly , w e m od ify h is sente nce byst ri ki ng tha t r equi re m ent. A FFI RMED as M OD IF IE D

11- 22- 11