United States v. Esnel Isnadin
742 F.3d 1278
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- An undercover ATF agent solicits Jolens Cius, Kamensky Gustama, and Esnel Isnadin to rob a stash house guarding cocaine, emphasizing armed guards.
- Indictment charged multiple counts: Hobbs Act conspiracy, drug conspiracy, drug conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, firearm offenses, and felon-in-possession charges.
- District court gave standard entrapment instruction and a supplemental count-by-count instruction in response to jury questions.
- Jury acquitted on Count 1 and convicted on Counts 2 and 4 for each applicable defendant; Isnadin was not charged with predicate offenses connected solely to him initially.
- Appellants challenged the jury instruction, argued insufficiency of evidence, and Isnadin argued derivative entrapment; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting all challenges.
- The court held the supplemental instruction proper, there was sufficient evidence of predisposition for Counts 2 and 4, and Isnadin’s derivative entrapment claim failed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the entrapment instruction was proper | Cius and Gustama assert error in count-by-count entrapment instruction. | Cius and Gustama contend a course-of-conduct approach was required. | No abuse; count-by-count instruction upheld. |
| Whether there is sufficient evidence of predisposition for Counts 2 and 4 | Government argues evidence shows predisposition to possess drugs and weapons. | Defendants contend lack of predisposition to commit those offenses. | Sufficient evidence supports predisposition for Counts 2 and 4. |
| Whether Isnadin’s derivative entrapment claim has merit | Isnadin argues derivative entrapment should apply | Isnadin advocates derivative entrapment defense | Derivative entrapment not recognized; Isnadin not entitled to relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mathews, 485 U.S. 58 (1988) (two elements of entrapment; government inducement and lack of predisposition)
- United States v. Costales, 5 F.3d 480 (11th Cir. 1993) (predisposition standard in entrapment analysis)
- United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618 (11th Cir. 1995) (predisposition inquiry and burden shifting in entrapment)
- United States v. Ventura, 936 F.2d 1228 (11th Cir. 1991) (burden of production in entrapment and jury considerations)
- United States v. Andrews, 765 F.2d 1491 (11th Cir. 1985) (burden-shifting and predisposition considerations)