Opinion ID: 810773
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Agent Zayas’s Testimony

Text: Augustus argues that his right against self-incrimination was violated during the following exchange between the government and Agent Zayas: Q: Now, the day before in the parking lot it was discussed that it would be at Smokey Bones, correct? A: That’s correct. Q: But now for some reason he’s asking you again. A: You’d have to ask him. Q: But that’s my question to you, correct? A: Right. He asked me again, and I told him. Augustus contends that Agent Zayas’s remark, “[y]ou’d have to ask him,” caused the jury to expect to hear him testify. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars the government from referencing the defendant’s silence or failure to testify. U.S. Const. amend. V; see 36 Case: 10-13161 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 37 of 41 also United States v. Guerra, 293 F.3d 1279, 1289 (11th Cir. 2002). This Court has recognized that “[a] comment is deemed to be a reference to the defendant’s silence if either (1) it was the prosecutor’s manifest intention to refer to the defendant’s silence, or (2) the remark was of such a character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on defendant’s silence.” Guerra, 293 F.3d at 1289 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Agent Zayas’s remark did not lead ineluctably to the conclusion by the jury that it was a comment on Augustus’s silence. At most, the government’s question sought not a response about Augustus personally testifying, but rather, sought a speculative response about Augustus’s reason for repeating a question to Agent Zayas. In context, Agent Zayas’s response to the government’s question referred to his inability to answer the question, rather than a comment on Augustus’s decision not to testify. See id. On this record, it was not “the prosecutor’s manifest intention to refer to the defendant’s silence,” nor was Agent Zayas’s response such that the jury necessarily would take it to comment on Augustus’s silence. See id. In any event, even if the comment was improper, the district court’s jury instructions explained that Augustus did not have to testify and had no burden whatsoever, and the prosecutor subsequently made no reference to Agent Zayas’s 37 Case: 10-13161 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 38 of 41 comment. Thus, in light of the jury instructions, the evidence at trial, and the prosecutor’s subsequent non-use of the remark, if there was error, it was harmless. See United States v. Smith, 635 F.2d 411, 413 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981).13 Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Augustus’s motion for mistrial based on Agent Zayas’s remark. F. Blair’s and Augustus’s Request for an Entrapment Instruction At the conclusion of the evidence, Blair and Augustus requested an entrapment instruction, but the district court denied their request. On appeal, they argue that the district court erred because the evidence was sufficient to support an entrapment instruction.14 Entrapment is an affirmative defense that consists of two elements: the government’s inducement of the crime, and the defendant’s lack of predisposition to commit the crime. United States v. Orisnord, 483 F.3d 1169, 1178 (11th Cir. 2007). The defendant bears the initial burden of showing the government’s 13 This Court adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions prior to October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). 14 Whether the defendant’s evidence of government inducement is sufficient to merit an instruction on entrapment is a legal issue to be decided by the district court. United States v. Sistrunk, 622 F.3d 1328, 1332-33 (11th Cir. 2010). However, this Court has not definitively resolved whether this means our review of the district court’s decision is de novo or for abuse of discretion. See id. (citing conflicting case law). This Court, in Sistrunk, recently declined to clarify the appropriate standard of review. Id. at 1333. Similarly, we do not reach that issue because under either standard of review here, the outcome is the same. 38 Case: 10-13161 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 39 of 41 inducement, which may be met “by producing any evidence sufficient to raise a jury issue that the government’s conduct created a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it.” Id. (internal quotation mark omitted). “[E]vidence of the government’s mere suggestion of a crime or initiation of contact is not enough. Instead, government inducement requires an element of persuasion or mild coercion.” United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618, 623 (11th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). It is only if the defendant meets his initial burden that he then becomes entitled to an entrapment defense, since “an evidentiary foundation for a valid entrapment defense must be present.” United States v. Ryan, 289 F.3d 1339, 1343 (11th Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, if the defendant does meet his burden, “the question of entrapment [then] becomes a factual one for the jury to decide. . . . It is elementary law that the defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have presented instructions relating to a theory of defense for which there is any foundation in the evidence.” United States v. Timberlake, 559 F.2d 1375, 1379 (5th Cir. 1977) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither Blair nor Augustus met their initial burden to warrant an entrapment instruction. The ATF agents merely suggested robbing the cocaine stash house. See Brown, 43 F.3d at 623. Blair and Augustus both had opportunities to decline 39 Case: 10-13161 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 40 of 41 to participate in the robbery, but each time, they assured the ATF agents that they were willing to proceed. Further, prior to the robbery suggestion, Blair told the ATF agents that he could steal his customers’ cars and break into their homes to rob them. After the robbery suggestion, Blair recruited Augustus, and told the agents that Augustus was experienced in robbery. Although both defendants assert that they so desperately needed money that they could not resist the robbery proposal, their own finances were not the result of government persuasion or coercion. In short, the evidence at trial showed no more than that the government presented an opportunity to commit a crime, which is not sufficient to merit an entrapment defense instruction. AFFIRMED. 40 Case: 10-13161 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 41 of 41