United States v. Cooke
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7133
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Undercover internet sting investigating sex trafficking of children used ad captioned 'Young and Irresistible.'
- Cooke answered the ad and exchanged 11 emails and 5 phone calls seeking to arrange time with an underage girl; he negotiated pricing and asked for photos.
- Cooke attended a house arranged by undercover officers; he entered the house, took out his wallet, and expressed intent to have time with 'Sabrina' (age 15) in a bedroom.
- Cooke argues the ad was a hoax and he pretended interest to test the setup, claiming he would not have engaged if Sabrina were underage.
- The district court refused Cooke’s entrapment instruction; Rule 404(b) evidence about emails with another minor was admitted with a limiting instruction.
- Juror No. 11 was dismissed after expressing discomfort and potential government-leaning bias; Cooke waived any appellate challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrapment instruction whether required | Cooke contends lack of predisposition evidence; entrapment instruction needed. | Government asserts sufficient predisposition evidence; no entrapment instruction required. | No error; Cooke predisposed, entrapment instruction inappropriate. |
| Admission of Rule 404(b) email evidence | Evidence of other acts (Roland emails) prejudicial; improper under 404(b). | Evidence relevant to knowledge/intent; admissible with limiting instruction. | Abbused discretion not; allowed with limiting instruction; probative and not unduly prejudicial. |
| Juror No. 11 dismissal and waiver | Challenge to juror dismissal should be reviewable. | Cooke waived challenge by not objecting and indicating acceptance of dismissal. | Waiver bar to review; claims unreviewable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Young, 613 F.3d 735 (8th Cir. 2010) (entrapment instruction denial is legal error in appropriate cases)
- United States v. Herbst, 666 F.3d 504 (8th Cir. 2012) (entrapment review de novo; predisposition standard governs)
- United States v. Berg, 178 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 1999) (two elements of entrapment: government inducement and defendant predisposition)
- United States v. Winn, 628 F.3d 432 (8th Cir. 2010) (Rule 404(b) balancing and admission standards)
- United States v. Turner, 583 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2009) (similar in kind and time-to-crime evidence admissibility)
- United States v. Strong, 415 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 2005) (limiting instruction reduces prejudice in 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Bermea-Boone, 563 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2009) (out-of-court statements not offered for truth but to provide context are not hearsay)
- United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2005) (context for motive; statements not hearsay when not offered for truth)
- United States v. Porter, 544 F.2d 936 (8th Cir. 1976) (admission of admissions as party-opponent statements)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (definition of waiver and reviewability of claims)