United States v. Dyke
718 F.3d 1282
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Dyke and Steele ran a small time criminal operation in Kansas; undercover agents offered to help expand into counterfeiting and meth production.
- They were arrested after agreeing to expand; jury convicted them of drug, forgery, and counterfeiting offenses.
- They challenged the convictions on ground of outrageous governmental conduct, seeking dismissal as improper government conduct before trial.
- The district court and appellate panel framed the issue as whether government conduct exceeded permissible bounds in the entrapment/ due process context.
- The court reviewed applicable Supreme Court and circuit precedents, explaining the outrageous governmental conduct defense is disfavored and rarely successful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether outrageous governmental conduct bars conviction | Dyke/Steele contend government conduct was outrageous | Government maintains conduct was permissible sting and not extreme | Not established; no relief due to lack of extreme conduct |
| Whether the government’s conduct engineered the crime from start to finish | Dyke/Steele argue government engineered the enterprise | Government did not direct from start to finish; induced continuation | Insufficient to warrant relief; conduct within acceptable bounds |
| Whether Steele was entrapped based on predisposition | Steele asserts lack of predisposition to meth/counterfeiting | Record shows Steele volunteered and eagerly participated | No reversible entrapment; jury reasonably found predisposition |
| Whether expunged state conviction affects § 841(b)(1)(A) minimum | Expunged conviction should negate recidivist minimum | Expungement does not erase existence of prior conviction under federal statute | Expungement does not defeat the recidivist penalty under § 841(b)(1)(A) |
| Whether Dyke was entitled to a voluntary intoxication instruction | Need instruction for specific-intent crimes | Insufficient evidence of impairment to negate mens rea | Instruction not warranted; evidence insufficient to show inability to form intent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515 (10th Cir. 1994) (excessive government involvement depends on totality of circumstances and prior conduct)
- United States v. Mosley, 965 F.2d 906 (10th Cir. 1992) (government may infiltrate ongoing crime and induce continuation)
- United States v. Diaz, 189 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 1999) (predisposition considerations in outrageous conduct analysis)
- Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1986) (outrageous conduct not a due process remedy absent protected rights)
- United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) (entrancement vs. outrageous conduct; focus on defendant's predisposition)
- Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980) (due process limits apply when government conduct violates protected rights)
- Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1988) (reaffirmed limits on reversing convictions for government misconduct)
- United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (1986) (remedies for government misconduct; limits on reversals)
- United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499 (1983) (due process review limited to rights violations)
- Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, 460 U.S. 103 (1983) (expunction and its effect on later sentencing)