778 F.3d 3
1st Cir.2015Background
- FBI "Operation Guard Shack" used confidential informant Héctor Cotto (a former PRPD officer) to recruit allegedly corrupt PRPD officers to provide armed protection for staged, recorded drug deals.
- David González, a former PRPD officer previously charged (and pled guilty) in a state bribery matter with Cotto, participated in 15 undercover transactions; he was paid $2,000–$2,500 per job and recruited others for later jobs.
- At trial Gonzalez admitted participating but claimed blanks in first transaction, lack of knowledge that the first job involved drugs until the luggage was opened, financial need, fear for his safety, and coerced continuation—requesting jury instructions on entrapment and duress and an instruction on impeachment by prior conviction.
- Jury acquitted González of firearm counts and the first-transaction drug counts, convicted on drug counts for the subsequent 14 transactions; sentenced to 292 months’ imprisonment and 5 years supervised release.
- The district court denied entrapment and duress instructions and refused a separate impeachment-by-conviction instruction (though it gave a credibility charge addressing cooperating witnesses); the court also made several interruptions during defense closing and overruled/sustained various objections during rebuttal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (González) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrapment instruction | Cotto repeatedly solicited him, knew his vulnerability, and used friendship/pressure to induce commission | FBI conduct was a sting giving opportunity only; no coercive overreaching or improper inducement; evidence showed predisposition | Refused — no hard evidence of government inducement; no entitlement to instruction |
| Duress instruction | He feared violence to himself/family and was told to continue, so he acted under threat | Alleged threats were vague/future, not immediate or tied to the charged conduct; record shows enjoyment and voluntary repetition | Refused — evidence insufficient to support duress |
| Impeachment by prior conviction instruction | Requested explicit instruction under Rule 609 because government witnesses had felonies | Court had already told jury to view cooperating witnesses with caution and referenced guilty pleas and benefits | Denial not reversible — the charge substantially covered credibility concerns |
| Closing argument / rebuttal misconduct | Court interruptions and sustained objections curtailed defense; prosecutor’s rebuttal mischaracterized evidence and law | Court acted within discretion to police argument, correct misstatements, and prevent nullification; prosecutor’s rebuttal was responsive and not plainly erroneous | No new trial — any interjections or remarks were harmless; rebuttal not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Díaz-Maldonado, 727 F.3d 130 (1st Cir.) (discussing difficulty of prevailing on entrapment instruction)
- United States v. Dávila-Nieves, 670 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (standard for entitlement to entrapment instruction)
- United States v. Guevara, 706 F.3d 38 (1st Cir.) (examples of government overreaching/inducement)
- United States v. Vázquez, 724 F.3d 15 (1st Cir.) (duress elements and immediacy requirement)
- United States v. De La Cruz, 514 F.3d 121 (1st Cir.) (standard for reviewing refusal to give requested jury instruction)
- United States v. Rodríguez, 675 F.3d 48 (1st Cir.) (harmless-error analysis for improper remarks in closing)