United States v. Hai Schaffer
582 F. App'x 468
5th Cir.2014Background
- undercover investigation of drug distribution in Plano, Texas; Schaffer and Gamez implicated via undercover officer’s planned cocaine transaction and phone discussions; June 2, 2010 attempt failed but leads to later sale; five kilograms of cocaine delivered June 10, 2010 and arrests followed; indictment alleges conspiracy to possess 5+ kilograms of cocaine from Jan 2009 to May 12, 2010; March 14, 2010 arrest of Schaffer introduced as evidence; trial combined, entrapment and Rule 404(b) issues raised; ultimately convicted on one-count conspiracy charge and sentenced
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrapment instruction proper | Schaffer lacked predisposition; government inducement | Government inducement created crime | No entrapment instruction required |
| Admission under Rule 404(b) or intrinsic | Evidence relevant to intent | Evidence impermissible character proof | Properly admitted under Rule 404(b) (probative and non-prejudicial) |
| Post-arrest silence remark constituted Doyle error | Comment on silence violated due process | Remark not a commenting on silence; not preserved | Plain error not established; remark not impairing due process |
| Prosecutorial misconduct on cross-examination | Question about bribery testimony improper | Question permissible to challenge credibility | No prosecutorial misconduct; proper cross-examination under rules |
| Indictment adequacy for Gamez | Indictment overly broad in time framing | Variance within statute of limitations; sufficient notice | Indictment sufficient; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (two-step Beechum Rule for 404(b) admissibility)
- United States v. Nelson, 732 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 2013) (entrapment predisposition analysis for jury instruction)
- United States v. Theagene, 565 F.3d 911 (5th Cir. 2009) (government inducement and predisposition considerations)
- United States v. Bradfield, 113 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 1997) (entrapment inducement standard; mere opportunity not enough)
- United States v. Doyle, 426 U.S. 610 (1986) (prohibition on post-arrest silence comment under due process)