United States v. Carl Joseph Thomas Pisa
701 F. App'x 781
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Carl Pisa sold 12 commercial-grade mortar fireworks altered by cementing copper-coated steel BB pellets to their exteriors and wrapping them in tape.
- Devices contained flash powder and black powder; lab detonations showed BBs penetrated drywall and concrete and acted as shrapnel at high velocity.
- Pisa told an undercover agent he made the devices, described attaching BBs with cement, taking safety precautions, had detonated one that destroyed a dumpster, and said the devices could kill and be wired as booby traps.
- FBI/ATF experts testified the modifications removed benign value and converted the shells into explosive bombs/destructive devices under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f).
- Pisa was convicted after a jury trial under 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871 for possessing unregistered destructive devices; he appealed only the conviction (not sentence).
Issues
| Issue | Pisa's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that devices were "destructive devices" (and Pisa knew features) | Government never proved devices were more than fireworks with ball bearings; Pisa didn’t make them so lacked knowledge of internal features | Devices were altered with BBs serving as shrapnel; lab tests and Pisa’s admissions show devices functioned as explosives designed as weapons and Pisa knew the shrapnel features | Affirmed: ample evidence devices were destructive devices and Pisa knew the features making them so (government need only prove knowledge of characteristics, not registration requirement) |
| Denial of entrapment jury instruction | Government induced the crime via undercover agent initiation and persistent requests; entrapment instruction should have been given | Pisa initiated contact via Facebook ad, volunteered expertise, expressed no real hesitancy, and supplied/altered devices—so no governmental inducement | Affirmed: district court properly denied instruction because Pisa failed to produce evidence of government inducement and was predisposed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hammond, 371 F.3d 776 (11th Cir. 2004) (device is a destructive device if designed as a weapon; ask whether device has value other than as a weapon)
- United States v. Owens, 103 F.3d 953 (11th Cir. 1997) (mens rea requires knowledge of device’s characteristics, not knowledge of registration requirement)
- United States v. Miller, 255 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2001) (government must prove defendant knew features bringing device within firearm definition)
- United States v. Ruiz, 253 F.3d 634 (11th Cir. 2001) (clarifies mens rea: awareness of features, not legal classification)
- United States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard for de novo review of sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Orisnord, 483 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2007) (elements of entrapment: government inducement and lack of predisposition)
- United States v. Sistrunk, 622 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2010) (defendant bears burden to produce evidence of inducement before instruction; legal sufficiency is for trial court)
- United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618 (11th Cir. 1995) (inducement shown by persuasion or mild coercion; mere suggestion/initiation insufficient)
- United States v. Ryan, 289 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2002) (examples of evidence showing inducement include government needing to "push" the plan or repeated failed solicitations)
- United States v. Parr, 716 F.2d 796 (11th Cir. 1983) (statements of frustration are not necessarily evidence of hesitancy or lack of predisposition)