United States v. Djokich
693 F.3d 37
1st Cir.2012Background
- Djokich indicted with DeAngelis on conspiracy to kidnap (18 U.S.C. §1201(a)(1),(c)) and conspiracy to use interstate facilities in murder-for-hire (18 U.S.C. §1958); moved to dismiss for outrageous government misconduct manufacturing jurisdiction; district court deferred ruling; 14-day trial ensued; jury convicted on both counts on June 16, 2010; district court denied the motion to dismiss; sentenced to 240 months, 36 months' supervised release, $25,000 fine; Djokich appeals challenging denial of the motion and a request for a jurisdictional entrapment jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government conduct created manufactured jurisdiction warranting dismissal | Djokich asserts outrageous misconduct by ICE-Boston to move crimes to the U.S. | Djokich argues government manufactured jurisdiction by state-shifting the crime to the U.S. | No; not justified for dismissal; jurisdiction not manufactured. |
| Whether the court should have instructed jury on jurisdictional entrapment | Djokich sought a jurisdictional entrapment instruction. | Government induced travel to U.S. but Djokich volunteered; no threshold inducement. | District court did not err in denying the instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Guzman, 282 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2002) (outrageous misconduct doctrine applied narrowly; discretion to dismiss limited)
- United States v. Luisi, 482 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2007) (outrageous conduct rare; due process concerns)
- United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) (due process concerns; outrageous misconduct requires extreme circumstances)
- United States v. Santana, 6 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1993) (outrageous misconduct defense rare; due process)
- United States v. Archer, 486 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1973) (manufactured jurisdiction concept; transformation of local offense to federal crime)
- United States v. Coates, 949 F.2d 104 (4th Cir. 1991) (dismissal where federal element lacking absent proper link)
- United States v. Brantley, 777 F.2d 159 (4th Cir. 1985) (manufactured jurisdiction in gambling case; interstate action required)
- United States v. Ramos-Paulino, 488 F.3d 459 (1st Cir. 2007) (solicitation or opportunity to commit does not itself prove wrongdoing)
- Lau Tung Lam, 714 F.2d 209 (2d Cir. 1983) (government has legitimate interest in apprehending criminals; discretion to investigate)
- United States v. Peters, 952 F.2d 960 (7th Cir. 1992) (voluntary actions by defendant undermine manufactured jurisdiction claim)
- West v. United States, 631 F.3d 563 (1st Cir. 2011) (entrapment elements; government inducement and predisposition framework)
- United States v. Rodríguez, 858 F.2d 809 (1st Cir. 1988) (entrapment defense threshold requirements and burden shifting)
- DePierre, 599 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (entrapment defense burden-shifting framework)
- United States v. Wallace, 85 F.3d 1063 (2d Cir. 1996) (federal element linked to defendant's voluntary actions)