United States v. Cordae Black
750 F.3d 1053
9th Cir.2014Background
- ATF conducted a reverse sting in Phoenix, recruiting a paid CI to entice random bar patrons to commit a non-existent stash-house robbery.
- The CI introduced defendants to the government agent and the agent supplied details, urged gun involvement, and helped plan the fake crime.
- Defendants Black, Mahon, Alexander, and Timmons joined the scheme, following the agent’s instructions to meet and prepare at a warehouse where they were arrested.
- The entire operation was a government-created fiction, with the defendants acting under the agent’s script and supervision.
- The panel denied panel rehearing and rehearing en banc; Judge Noonan voted to grant panel rehearing and recommended en banc review; dissents criticized the approach.
- Judge Reinhardt dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc, arguing the government tactics threaten constitutional values and should be reviewed en banc.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the reverse-sting tactics violated due process | Government tactics are legitimate and aid law enforcement; applicable precedent supports the approach. | Tactics are outrageous and unconstitutional, warranting dismissal. | Indictment should be dismissed due to outrageous conduct |
| Whether targeting poor minority neighborhoods raises equal protection concerns | No systemic discrimination; operation targeted criminals as needed by enforcement goals. | Procedures risk racial and socio-economic discrimination and undermine fairness. | Due process concerns recognized; conduct unacceptable and warrants dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stinson, 647 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (due process dismissal in extreme government conduct cases)
- United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (Supreme Court 1973) (outrageous government conduct standard)
- Greene v. United States, 454 F.2d 783 (9th Cir. 1971) (outrageous government conduct principle)
- Gurolla v. United States, 333 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2003) (limits on random dragnets in vulnerable communities)
- Pineda-Moreno, 617 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2010) (concern about unequal enforcement and liberty interests)
- Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) (due process and equality concerns in government action)