Opinion ID: 695199
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence of Predisposition

Text: 28 Akinsanya's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is similarly without merit. [A] verdict will withstand a sufficiency of the evidence challenge unless there is no evidence from which the jury can find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Tilmon, 19 F.3d 1221, 1229 (7th Cir.1994). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and will not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of the witnesses. Tilmon, 19 F.3d at 1229; United States v. Caudill, 915 F.2d 294, 297 (7th Cir.1990). 29 Where the government has induced an individual to break the law and the defense of entrapment is at issue ... the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by government agents. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548-49, 112 S.Ct. 1535, 1540, 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992). This standard creates two issues for the jury: (1) did the government induce the defendant to commit a crime; and (2) was there a lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant to engage in the criminal conduct. See United States v. Hollingsworth, 27 F.3d 1196, 1200-01 (7th Cir.1994) (en banc ). The two elements are inversely related. [T]he greater the inducement, the weaker the inference that in yielding to it the defendant demonstrated that he was predisposed to commit the crime in question. Hollingsworth, 27 F.3d at 1200. Where the defendant was simply provided with the opportunity to commit a crime, the entrapment defense is of little use because the ready commission of the criminal act amply demonstrates the defendant's predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550, 112 S.Ct. at 1541. Such is the case before us. 30 Akinsanya contends that he lacked the basic knowledge, instincts, and tools that would allow him to survive as a drug dealer, and that absent the repeated and intense pressure placed upon him by Gilani, he would not have committed the crime. While it is true that Gilani persisted in his efforts to buy heroin from Akinsanya after initial attempts failed, persistence is not alone sufficient to carry the case beyond an ordinary opportunity. United States v. Santiago-Godinez, 12 F.3d 722, 729 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1630, 128 L.Ed.2d 354 (1994). There is no evidence in the record that Gilani employed any pressure tactics or used any other type of coercion to induce Akinsanya to commit the crime. Indeed, the only inducement which Akinsanya appears to have been offered was the ordinary profits of heroin trafficking. The ease with which Akinsanya acquired the heroin only serves to enhance the government's case. For someone who purportedly lacked the basic knowledge, instincts and tools of the trade, Akinsanya was able to acquire a significant amount of heroin (100 grams) in very little time. Under the circumstances, a jury would be hard-pressed to find that Akinsanya was not predisposed to commit the crime with which he was charged.