Opinion ID: 3058601
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Testimony of Government

Text: Grajales’s trial began on May 3, 2010. At trial, an undercover law enforcement officer, Detective Juan Sanchez (“Sanchez”), testified that the investigation in this case involved the use of a CI and that the CI initiated all recorded phone calls with Grajales. Prior to his first meeting with Grajales, the CI 3 called Grajales several times to set up a meeting between them. Although Grajales and the CI arranged a meeting for October 8, 2009, Grajales declined to attend. Therefore, the CI called Grajales and set up a meeting with Sanchez for October 15, 2009. On October 15, 2009, the CI drove Grajales to the first meeting between Sanchez and Grajales. On the way to the meeting, Grajales asked the CI, “[W]hat’s this about . . . .? What merchandise?” The CI responded that it was related to something from the airport. Once Sanchez arrived, Grajales asked Sanchez to explain the situation to him. Sanchez explained that the merchandise involved drugs and that he would be delivering a large shipment of cocaine to a stash house. Grajales questioned whether there were cameras, and even though Sanchez responded “no,” Grajales said the job would be easy even if there were cameras. Grajales further questioned whether the goal was to get the money or the cocaine. When Sanchez responded that he did not know whether there would be any money, Grajales explained that “the stuff would be for you” but questioned whether Sanchez was “able to sell it?” Additionally, Grajales explained that he had people that were “pros” and that his guys even had police uniforms that they could use to commit the robbery. Subsequently, the CI arranged two additional meetings. The CI arranged 4 the second meeting between the CI, Sanchez, and Grajales for October 26, 2009. A member of Grajales’s crew, Barrera-Avila, was also present. At this meeting, Sanchez explained that a shipment of cocaine was arriving the following week. The CI arranged the third meeting between Sanchez, the CI, Grajales, and BarreraAvila for November 3, 2009. During the third meeting, Sanchez informed Grajales and Barrera-Avila that the delivery of the cocaine shipment would take place the following day. Grajales and Barrera-Avila agreed to go forward with the armed robbery and stated that they would be bringing three other individuals to assist in committing the robbery. They further explained that, after the robbery, all of the participants would meet at Grajales’s house. On November 4, 2009, the day of the planned robbery, the CI called Grajales. During this phone call, Grajales advised the CI that he was concerned that his crew was going to steal from him, and therefore he wanted to bring in an additional person for protection. On the same day, the CI placed another phone call to Grajales and advised him to meet at a shopping center to execute the robbery. Subsequently, Grajales arrived at the location, entered the CI’s vehicle, and proceeded to a predetermined location. While Grajales was in the CI’s vehicle, he called someone on the phone and offered him $10,000 to $15,000 if he could get a 5 car and meet Grajales. Grajales also spoke with the CI and told him that the scheme “better not be a fairytale.” After speaking with the CI, Grajales called the additional person he wanted for protection and explained to him that the plan was a “sure thing.” However, when Grajales and the CI arrived at the predetermined location, Grajales observed law enforcement and informed the person on the phone: “Listen, wait. This, this was a trap, wait.” At the close of the government’s case-in-chief, Grajales moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, for judgment of acquittal on all five counts of the indictment. Grajales argued, in part, that there was entrapment as a matter of law based on the persistent contact between the CI and Grajales. In support of this argument, Grajales noted that the CI had called him approximately fifty times prior to November 4, 2009, while Grajales had called the CI approximately six times. He further argued that, prior to the first meeting with Sanchez, Grajales did not know that the plan involved cocaine and initially stated that he did not want any cocaine. The district court held that it was inappropriate to consider entrapment as a defense at the close of the government’s case-in-chief.