Opinion ID: 3044861
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Original Charge Related to Entrapment

Text: 21 Case: 12-13474 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 22 of 58 During the charge conference, the Appellants requested a particular jury instruction on entrapment drafted by Cius’s counsel.22 The Government objected to the proposed instruction, but did not object to the court giving the standard pattern entrapment instruction. The district court agreed with the prosecution that the “standard instruction better sets forth the law on entrapment.” Thus, as part of its final instruction to the jury, the district court stated: “Entrapment” occurs when law enforcement officers or others under their direction persuade a defendant to commit a crime the defendant had no previous intent to commit. The defendant has claimed to be a victim of entrapment regarding the charged offense. The law forbids convicting an entrapped defendant. But there is no entrapment when a defendant is willing to break the law and the Government merely provides what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the defendant to commit a crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and offer – directly or through another person – to engage in an unlawful transaction. You must not evaluate the conduct of Government officers or others under their direction to decide whether you approve of the conduct or think it was moral. So, a defendant isn’t a victim of entrapment if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [sic] only offered the defendant an opportunity to commit a crime the defendant was already willing to commit. 22 The proposed instruction consists of seven alternative entrapment instructions. That proposed instruction did not specifically address the key issue in this appeal ─ whether Appellants’ entrapment defense should be applied on an offense by offense basis. 22 Case: 12-13474 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 23 of 58 But if there is a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant was willing to commit the crime without the persuasion of a Government officer or a person under the Government’s direction, you must find the defendant not guilty. 23 The district court further instructed the jury: Each count of the Indictment charges a separate crime against one or more of the defendants. You must consider each crime and the evidence relating to it separately. And you must consider the case of each defendant separately and individually. If you find a defendant guilty of one crime, that must not affect your verdict for any other crime or any other defendant.24 None of the Appellants objected to this instruction when it was proposed at the charge conference; in addition, after the instructions were read to the jury, they did not object to the “content or the manner in which the court gave the instructions.” 2. Supplemental Instruction Related to Entrapment During deliberations, the court informed the parties that it had received the following question from the jury: “Count 1 – How does entrapment the other accounts? [sic] If we believe in entrapment, are the other charges applicable: count 2, count 3?”25 The Government argued that the jury should be told that “each count would be subject to entrapment individually.” The district court then stated: 23 Eleventh Circuit Special Pattern Instruction (Criminal Cases) 13.2 (2010). 24 Eleventh Circuit Pattern Instruction (Criminal Cases) 10.4 (2010). 25 The jury also asked a second question regarding how to attribute the amount of cocaine to each Defendant-Appellant. That question has no bearing on the instant appeal. 23 Case: 12-13474 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 24 of 58 THE COURT: I agree. I didn’t mean to say that if you find entrapment as to one count, you have to find entrapment as to all six. I don’t think that’s the case. I think the jury has to consider each count and each defendant separately and distinctly. They could come back with some entrapment findings or they could come back with some that weren’t entrapped. So it would seem to me that I should tell them -- even though they are not asking it -- that entrapment is raised as a defense as to each defendant as to each of the six counts and that they are to view the evidence separately and distinctly as it relates to each defendant and each count. And they could come back with all guilties, all not guilties, some guilties, some not guilties. Cius’s counsel objected, and requested a different response: MR. ROBBINS: It’s my belief that if they believe that there is entrapment as to one count, then there should be entrapment for all the counts, and that would be my request to answer these questions. Cius’s counsel argued that “my analogy is like -- it’s like the fruit of the poisonous tree. I mean, you know, if what was done was improper, then everything that flows therefrom should be improper.” After some colloquy, the following exchange occurred: MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, after conferring with our clients, we would ask that Your Honor instruct the jury that the entrapment applies to all the counts. It’s an either all or nothing situation. THE COURT: I don’t think that's correct. What do you think, Mr. Tantillo? MR. TANTILLO [the AUSA]: Your Honor, I agree with you. It’s not correct. It applies to each individual count in this particular matter. A person can be predisposed and have intent to commit one crime, but not another. And I think, as you stated very correctly and as was outlined in the conversation I think on the 20th of December, Mr. Gustama may have very well wanted to steal the cocaine, but not have wanted to rob it. 24 Case: 12-13474 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 25 of 58 The following discussion then ensued: [The Court]: All right. As to the first question, I would propose telling the jury: All three defendants have raised entrapment as a defense to each of the six charges against each of them. You are to consider the evidence separately and distinctly as to each defendant and as to each count. Therefore, if you find that the Government has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular defendant as to a particular count was not entrapped, you should find that defendant not guilty as to that particular count. Then you would consider the other 17 counts. MR.TANTILLO: Individually or separately? THE COURT: Then you would consider the other 17 counts individually and separately. MR. TANTILLO: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any comments or objections to that proposed way to answer the first question? MR. ROBBINS: I mean with all due respect to the Court, you know, I mean I rather that instruction not go in because I am still of the belief if it’s entrapment as to one, it should be entrapment to all. And maybe Your Honor should answer the question that -- THE COURT: I can’t tell them entrapment as to one count is entrapment as to all 18. I mean the situations are different. Mr. Isnadin only showed up the last day of the situation. They may find that he wasn’t entrapped the last day and that the other two, Mr. Cius and Mr. Gustama, were entrapped. So I can’t tell them: If you find entrapment, then you got to find everybody not guilty. And the jury may find, for example, Mr. Isnadin was never told anything by any Government agent before he showed up – if the jury wants to believe it – with a gun. So, you know, how was he entrapped about bringing a gun if he is a convicted felon? So I am not going to tell the jury that if they find that what Mr. Cius and Mr. Gustama were told in December 25 Case: 12-13474 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 26 of 58 constituted entrapment, that that somehow is the fruit of the poisonous tree so that Mr. Isnadin can show up with a gun when he has never had any contact with a law enforcement officer or other agent and all of a sudden he gets immunity for that action. I am not going to tell them that. MR. ROBBINS: But my position is that, you know, if they find entrapment for one count, then they should find it for all counts, not to – they still can divide the defendants up, you know, and still decide which defendant has the benefit of the entrapment defense. THE COURT: Then what you are suggesting is I tell them: If you find a particular defendant was entrapped, your verdict should be not guilty as to all six counts. MR. ROBBINS: Yes. THE COURT: And if you find that the defendant was not entrapped, if you find the Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they weren't entrapped and they otherwise proved all of the elements of the crime, then you should find them guilty on all six counts. MR. ROBBINS: Yes. THE COURT: I don’t think that’s the law. I think you can get entrapped as to committing one crime, but not as to others. MR. ROBBINS: I don’t see how – THE COURT: I don’t think entrapment applies to the transaction. I think it applies to the crime. MR. ROBBINS: I just don't see how you can take – I mean, all these cases – all these different charges were all intertwined. It was all, you know, the robbery and the cocaine and the guns. It was all one – basically one sales job by the agent. And he was – and when he was talking to the defendants, he was talking about the cocaine, he was talking about the robbery, he was talking about the weapons. And I don’t think that there should be a differentiation between those – you know, I mean it was all one – like one transaction. It was all one issue. 26 Case: 12-13474 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 27 of 58 It wasn’t like it was divided – when the officers talk about it, it was the – THE COURT: And the jury may very well find factually that that’s the case, but I don’t think they have to. I think the jury could find that, you know, these guys brought guns and that they were comfortable bringing guns and they were predisposed to do it and find them guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Under your scenario that would be precluded. Gustama’s counsel then proposed an alternative instruction: MR. HOROWITZ: Your Honor, while I join in Mr. Robbins’ request for the all or nothing instruction, for lack of a better term, if the Court was to deny that request, a simple answer to the question would be entrapment is a defense as to all counts of the Indictment as to all defendants, and then let the jury deliberate. I think that says it in a – giving them an opportunity to find entrapment or not find entrapment as to all counts. The district court rejected this proposal as well, and stated: “All right. I think I am going to give the instruction the way I proposed it over all three defendants’ objections. . . . So I am going to give the instructions the way I proposed them and the defense objections are overruled.” The district court then answered the jury’s question: THE COURT: All right. We have two notes from you or two questions from you. Count 1. How does entrapment affect the other counts? If we believe in entrapment, are the other charges applicable to count 2, count 3? All three defendants have raised entrapment as [a] defense as to each of the six charges against each of them. You are to consider the evidence separately and distinctly as to each defendant and as to each count. Therefore, if you find that the Government has not proved 27 Case: 12-13474 Date Filed: 02/14/2014 Page: 28 of 58 beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular defendant as to a particular count was not entrapped, you should find that defendant not guilty as to that particular count. Then you would consider the other 17 counts individually and separately.