Opinion ID: 3029528
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Entrapment and Due Process

Text: Entrapment and its related due process defense are based on the notion that it “serves no justifying social objective” for the Government to “creat[e] new crime for the sake of bringing charges against a person [it] had persuaded to participate in wrongdoing.” United States v. West, 511 F.2d 1083, 1085 (3d Cir. 1975).8 Despite their common intellectual origin, however, 8 See also United States v. Archer, 486 F.2d 670, 677 (2d Cir. 1973) (Friendly, J.) (“Prosecutors and their agents naturally tend 11 the two defenses are not identical and require distinct inquiries to apply properly. On the one hand, the defense of due process focuses exclusively the conduct of the Government. If that conduct is “so outrageous” as to be “shocking to the universal sense of justice,” then the Due Process Clause can function as an “absolut[e] bar [on] the [G]overnment from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction.” United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431–32 (1973). The defense of entrapment, on the other hand, focuses on the defendant himself: if the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime, then it cannot be said that the Government is responsible, notwithstanding the egregiousness of its conduct. Id. at 432–36. 9 to assign great weight to the societal interest in apprehending and convicting criminals; the danger is that they will assign too little to the rights of citizens to be free from governmentinduced criminality.”). 9 The concept of “entrapment” is not of ancient pedigree. See Jonathan C. Carlson, The Act Requirement and the Foundations of the Entrapment Defense, 73 V A. L. R EV. 1011, 1013 (1987) (referring to the entrapment defense as “remain[ing] at a formative stage”). The Supreme Court first recognized entrapment as a valid defense in Sorrells v. United States. 287 U.S. 435 (1932). In Sorrells, however, there was sharp disagreement among the Justices on its proper legal basis. Some, led by Justice Owen Roberts, argued that the defense of entrapment should be grounded in the inherent power of a court to “protect[] . . . its own functions” and “preserv[e] 12 . . . the purity of its own temple.” Id. at 457. This approach focused the inquiry on governmental action and considered whether it was sufficiently “revolting.” Id. at 454. Another approach—adopted by the Sorrells majority—framed the question as one of statutory interpretation. This approach was based on the conclusion that Congress would not have enacted a statute whereby “its process of detection and enforcement should be abused by the instigation by government officials of an act on the part of persons otherwise innocent in order to lure them to its commission and to punish them.” Id. at 448. Framed in this way, the focus of the inquiry became the defendant himself—specifically, his predisposition. If a defendant is predisposed to commit the crime charged, then the defense of entrapment is not available to him—no matter what the Government’s actions may have been. It was not until two 1970s cases, Russell (cited in the text) and Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976), that the law was settled as described above (i.e., two distinct defenses of entrapment and due process). The Court in Russell, by a 5-to-4 vote, reaffirmed that the defendant-focused approach to the entrapment defense was the proper one. 411 U.S. at 432–36. However, in the course of its discussion, the Court offered the following caveat: “While we may some day be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the [G]overnment from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction, the instant case is distinctly not of that breed.” Id. at 431–32 (emphasis added, citation omitted). 13 Lakhani raises both defenses on appeal, but neither are compelled by the facts of this case.
This statement indicated a possibility that if the Government’s actions were sufficiently outrageous, then due process would step in where entrapment could not. That possibility was confirmed in Hampton. Justice Powell, writing for himself and Justice Blackmun (providing two necessary votes for the Court’s judgment), explained that he did not believe the law to preclude the notion that “fundamental fairness inherent in the guarantee of due process [might] prevent the conviction of a predisposed defendant.” Hampton, 425 U.S. at 492 (Powell, J., concurring). Rather, he believed that the defense of “[e]ntrapment should now be employed as a term of art limited to [predisposition],” id. at 492 n.2, and that either a court’s supervisory power or due process “could support a bar to conviction” where the defendant was predisposed, but the Government’s actions were nevertheless “outrageous” and violated fundamental fairness, see id. at 492–95 & n.6 (Powell, J., concurring). It is Justice Powell’s conception of the doctrine and terms that our Court has employed since Hampton: “entrapment” focuses on the predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime, whereas “due process” focuses on the Government’s conduct. See United States v. Nolan-Cooper, 155 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 1998); United States v. Beverly, 723 F.2d 11 (3d Cir. 1983); United States v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578 (3d Cir. 1982) (en banc); United States v. Twigg, 588 F.2d 373 (3d Cir. 1978). 14 As noted above, “[t]he element of non-predisposition to commit the offense is the primary focus of an entrapment defense.” United States v. Fedroff, 874 F.2d 178, 182 (3d Cir. 1989); see United States v. Gambino, 788 F.2d 938, 944 (3d Cir. 1986); Jannotti, 673 F.3d at 597. It is a “‘relatively limited defense’ that may defeat a prosecution only ‘when the Government’s deception actually implants the criminal design in the mind of the defendant.’” Fedroff, 874 F.2d at 181 (quoting Russell, 411 U.S. at 435–36). Once properly raised by the defendant,10 “the [G]overnment has the burden to disprove the whole (entrapment) defense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jannotti, 673 F.2d at 597 (internal quotation marks omitted). In Gambino, we agreed with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in noting three ways in which the Government may do so: “‘(1) an existing course of criminal conduct similar to the crime for which the defendant is charged, (2) an already formed design on the part of the accused to commit the crime for which he is charged, or (3) a willingness to commit the crime for which he is charged as evidenced by the accused’s ready response to the inducement.’” 788 F.2d at 945 (quoting United States v. Viviano, 437 F.2d 295, 299 (2d Cir. 1971)). We have also 10 To do so, a defendant must produce sufficient evidence of inducement on the part of the Government and a lack of predisposition on his own part. See Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988); United States v. Wright, 921 F.2d 42, 44 (3d Cir. 1990). The Government does not contest that Lakhani met these requirements. 15 suggested several (somewhat overlapping) factors for consideration when making a determination on predisposition: “the character or reputation of the defendant, including any prior criminal record; whether the suggestion of the criminal activity was initially made by the Government; whether the defendant was engaged in the criminal activity for profit; whether the defendant evidenced reluctance to commit the offense, overcome only by repeated Government inducement or persuasion; and the nature of the inducement or persuasion supplied by the Government.” Fedroff, 874 F.2d at 184 (quoting United States v. ReynosoUlloa, 548 F.2d 1329, 1336 (9th Cir. 1977)). Simple solicitation by the Government is not inducement. United States v. Marino, 868 F.2d 549, 551–52 (3d Cir. 1989). “[A]lthough there may be instances where the undisputed facts establish the entrapment defense as a matter of law . . . , [it] is generally a jury question.” Jannotti, 673 F.2d at 597 (citations omitted). When a jury has rejected the entrapment defense, we “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and resolve all reasonable inferences therefrom in its favor. . . . Viewing the evidence in this light, [we] must uphold the jury’s verdict unless no reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 16 was predisposed to commit the offense for which he was convicted.” Id. at 598 (citations omitted). Given this, we can easily conclude that the jury’s rejection of Lakhani’s entrapment defense is supported by the evidence presented at trial. The Government’s evidence fits mostly into the third method of showing Lakhani’s predisposition: “a willingness to commit the crime for which he is charged as evidenced by the accused’s ready response to the inducement.” Gambino, 788 F.2d at 945.11 The record is replete with examples of Lakhani’s eagerness to obtain a missile for Rehman and the OLF. Even though the Government initiated this illegal arms deal, Lakhani’s “ready response” to its 11 The Government also argues that it proved Lakhani’s predisposition by showing a prior course of similar criminal conduct. See Gambino, 788 F.2d at 945. It would be more difficult to affirm Lakhani’s conviction on that ground alone. True, the Government introduced evidence showing Lakhani’s knowledge of, and connection with, various arms companies. There was scant evidence, however, that any of Lakhani’s activities with those companies was illegal, as it must be in order to prove predisposition under that prong. See id. (speaking of a prior “course of criminal conduct”). In fact, the only consummated transaction mentioned at trial was a legal one between Ukrspetsexport and the government of Angola. In his testimony, Rehman briefly mentioned that Lakhani indicated that some of his prior arms dealings were under the table, but this evidence was not developed to any significant degree. 17 solicitation is amply demonstrated by his multiple, self-financed trips to the Ukraine in search of a missile. This alone would be enough for the jury to reject Lakhani’s entrapment defense and for us to affirm his conviction. But there is more. Repeatedly over the course of the investigation—including at their very first meeting—Lakhani eagerly told Rehman that the missile “is available. . . . You will get it. I will obtain it.” Not only that, but Lakhani pushed Rehman to order more missiles in order to earn a higher profit: “[T]he quantity seems to be very small. . . . If I have to take this risk, better if a good quantity comes out.” This enthusiasm continued until the day Lakhani was arrested, when the missile had finally arrived on the hotel couch and he sought to arrange the next shipment. Moreover, other than the missile’s actual transportation and border crossing, Lakhani accomplished many technical aspects of the deal himself, without the suggestion or aid of the Government. This included, not insignificantly, the entire money laundering scheme and fraudulent bill of lading. No piece of evidence indicates a reluctance on Lakhani’s part to complete the illegal arms deal; indeed, everything demonstrates the opposite. Therefore, a reasonable jury could have concluded that the Government proved Lakhani’s predisposition (i.e., he showed a “willingness to commit the crime” by showing his “ready response to the inducement”). We will not disturb the jury’s determination that Lakhani was not entrapped by the Government. 18
“[T]he judiciary is extremely hesitant to find law enforcement conduct so offensive that it violates the Due Process Clause.” United States v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050, 1065 (3d Cir. 1996). We have said that this principle is to be invoked only in the face of “the most intolerable government conduct,” Jannotti, 673 F.2d at 608—not “‘each time the government acts deceptively or participates in a crime that it is investigating,’” Nolan-Cooper, 155 F.3d at 231 (quoting United States v. Mosely, 965 F.2d 906, 910 (10th Cir. 1992)). Moreover, due process should not be used in this context “‘merely as a device to circumvent the predisposition test [of] the entrapment defense.’” Id. (quoting Mosely, 965 F.2d at 910); see Jannotti, 673 F.2d at 608 (“We must be careful not to undermine the [Supreme] Court’s consistent rejection of the objective test of entrapment by permitting it to reemerge cloaked as a due process defense.”). In this spirit, we have been “admonished” not to “exercise ‘a “Chancellor’s foot”’ veto over law enforcement practices of which [we might] not approve.” Beverly, 723 F.2d at 12–13 (quoting Russell, 411 U.S. at 435). Precedent in the three decades since Hampton indicates that courts have heeded these admonitions. As the First Circuit Court of Appeals has noted, “[t]he banner of outrageous misconduct is often raised but seldom saluted.” United States v. Santana, 6 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1993) (“[C]ourts have rejected its application with almost monotonous regularity.”). The 19 defense has been called “moribund,” id., and “hanging by a thread,” Nolan-Cooper, 155 F.3d at 230. Indeed, our Court is alone in having recognized a violation of due process as set out by Justice Powell in Hampton. See Nolan-Cooper, 155 F.3d at 224, 230 (citing United States v. Twigg, 588 F.2d 373 (3d Cir. 1978)). Still, the defense is available in this Circuit, see Voigt, 89 F.3d at 1064, as it theoretically is in at least seven others, see United States v. Mosley, 965 F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir. 1992) (collecting cases). The only relevant question for us, therefore, is whether this is a proper case for its application. For the defense to apply, the Government’s conduct must have rendered the prosecution of the defendant fundamentally unfair. See Hampton, 425 U.S. at 494 n.6 (Powell, J., concurring). As we have quoted before, “[a]lthough the requirement of outrageousness has been stated in several ways by various courts, the thrust of each of these formulations is that the challenged conduct must be shocking, outrageous, and clearly intolerable . . . . The cases make it clear that this is an extraordinary defense reserved for only for the most egregious circumstances.” Nolan-Cooper, 155 F.3d at 230–31 (alteration in original) (quoting Mosely, 965 F.2d at 910). We have noted that “courts have experienced considerable difficulty in translating 20 ‘outrageous misconduct’ into a defined set of behavioral norms.” Id. at 230. This does not relieve us of the obligation to enforce the bounds of constitutional acceptability, however. As noted by Justice Powell in his Hampton concurrence, “[t]he fact that there is sometimes no sharply defined standard against which to make these judgments is not itself a sufficient reason to deny the federal judiciary’s power to make them when warranted by the circumstances.” 425 U.S. at 494 n.6. This we undertake to do.12 Because outrageous government conduct, a constitutional claim, is a mixed question of law and fact, “[w]e exercise plenary review over the district court’s legal conclusions, and review any challenges to the court’s factual findings for clear error.” Nolan-Cooper, 155 F.3d at 229; see Voigt, 89 F.3d at 1064. At Lakhani’s sentencing hearing, the District Court first 12 The Government argues, citing United States v. Pitt, 193 F.3d 751 (3d Cir. 1999), that because Lakhani did not move on this ground for dismissal of the superseding indictment before the trial, he has waived whatever defense may be available to him in this regard. We note that in Pitt, unlike here, the due process argument was raised for the first time on appeal. See id. at 759. Not only that, but here the District Court explicitly ruled that “the . . . argument was not waived” because it would have waited until after the trial to rule on the motion. In any event, because we ultimately reject Lakhani’s due process argument, we need not decide how we would deal with his purported waiver here. See id. at 761–62. 21 ruled on his motion to dismiss the superseding indictment: I am denying the motion and let me tell you why. Addressing the argument on the merits, it fails. The evidence does not establish the extent of outrageous government conduct that would be necessary to prevail. None of the conduct of the government agents was demonstrably outrageous or intolerable or even close to meeting the rigorous standards enunciated in United States v. Nolan[-]Cooper, 155 F.3d 221, at pages 230, 231. Which rigor[ous] standard is, “shocking outrageous, and clearly intolerable.” Leaving aside the extremely high hurdle facing a defendant making the motion, this defendant’s efforts are defeated by evidence such as the fact that he initiated the contact with the government informant on the advice of terrorists; he promoted himself during the very first contact with the informant as someone in the weapons business whose source and supply was Ukraine and had information[] and details about all types of weapons; on his own he made innumerable phone calls and made numerous trips pursuing the deal with the informant; he was part of the world of arms trading before he contacted the informant; his efforts in the Ukraine, which amounted to unlawful brokering[,] were sufficient to pique the 22 interests of Russian authorities who initiated contact with the FBI in response. The shock in this case has only one source: Mr. Lakhani’s own words and deeds as exposed on video tapes played to the jury. It is difficult to discern error (let alone clear error) in any of the District Court’s factual findings or legal error in its due process ruling. Lakhani argues that the facts of this case are analogous to, if not “more compelling” than, those in Twigg—the only case in which the Government’s conduct has offended due process. Twigg involved an undercover investigation of two individuals by the DEA, Henry Neville and William Twigg. In that case, Robert Kubica, a pled-out defendant currying favor with prosecutors, “agreed to aid the [DEA] in apprehending illegal drug traffickers” and spoke with Neville to propose setting up a methamphetamine lab. Twigg, 588 F.2d at 375. Neville expressed an interest, and over several months the arrangements were made. Twigg became involved at the behest of Neville, to whom he owed money. Neville “assumed primary responsibility for raising capital and arranging for distribution” of the drugs, “while Kubica [the Government agent] undertook the acquisition of the necessary equipment, raw materials, and a production site.” Id. The Government assisted Kubica greatly with his end of the bargain. “Kubica was completely in charge of the entire laboratory,” and “[a]ny production assistance 23 provided by Neville and Twigg was minor and at the specific direction of Kubica.” Id. at 376. Once the lab was established, it operated for one week and produced six pounds of methamphetamine, after which Twigg and Neville were arrested. Lakhani argues many similarities between his case and Twigg. With only one such similarity do we agree: the evidence indicates that, as in Twigg, it was the Government agent, Rehman, who first suggested the criminal activity. Beyond that, however, significant dissimilarities abound. Rather than the Government agent being “completely in charge” and “furnish[ing] all of the [relevant] experience,” as in Twigg, here it was Lakhani who used his own knowledge of the arms business for the benefit of the illegal scheme. Lakhani traveled to Russia and the Ukraine on his own tab, communicated with no fewer than three separate arms companies, created fraudulent shipping documents, and deployed his own money laundering network. In addition, unlike in Twigg, where we saw little predisposition on the part of the defendants, there is much to suggest otherwise in Lakhani’s case, as explained above. See supra Part II.A.1. The fact that the Government, as here, is on all sides of a transaction—both buyer and seller—does not a due process violation make. See Jannotti, 673 F.2d at 608. Even in Twigg we recognized that where the Government is investigating “fleeting and elusive crime[s],” it may “require more extreme 24 methods of investigating, including the supply of ingredients.” 588 F.2d at 378. Likewise, we suggested in Jannotti that Government investigations of crimes that were “difficult to uncover” because “both parties to the transaction have an interest in concealment” would be given greater latitude. 673 F.2d at 609. We have here a Government investigation of international terrorism. With this context, we have no difficulty holding that the Government’s conduct does not rise to the level of a due process violation.