United States v. James Barta, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1382

Barta was targeted in an FBI undercover sting where agents posed as a broker ("Castro") offering to arrange a Los Angeles County contract in exchange for a payment to a purported corrupt county official (who did not exist).
Barta met or spoke with Castro on four occasions (Mar. 21, May 9, June 12, June 22); he provided brochures on Mar. 21, expressed conditional interest on May 9, gave an inconclusive phone response on June 12, and wrote a $6,500 Sav‑Rx check at the June 22 meeting.
The FBI repeatedly emailed, called, fabricated a county problem, increased the deal’s projected volume and value, created artificial deadlines, and pressed Barta by appealing to his relationship with co‑defendant Buenrostro.
The government conceded at trial that Barta lacked predisposition to commit bribery; the dispute centered on whether the government induced him.
A jury convicted Barta of conspiracy to commit bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 371; the district court denied a post‑verdict entrapment acquittal and Barta appealed.
The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that undisputed evidence of multiple inducement "plus factors" established entrapment as a matter of law and ordered acquittal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Barta entrapped?	Govt: Contacts, meetings, and Barta’s June payment show he joined conspiracy (May 9 or June 12).	Barta: Government induced him and conceded no predisposition.	Reversed — entrapment as a matter of law (government induced; no predisposition).
Did government conduct constitute inducement?	Govt: Persistence and communications were legitimate attempts to close a deal, not improper inducement.	Barta: Repeated persuasion, fraudulent representations, promises of reward, and appeals to friendship induced him.	Held: Multiple plus factors (repeated persuasion, fraud, promises, pleas of friendship) established inducement.
Could the government rely on an earlier‑theory of guilt (March 21) on appeal?	Govt (on appeal): Barta joined conspiracy as early as Mar. 21.	Barta: Government never advanced that theory to the jury; theory is inconsistent with trial.	Held: New theory waived; cannot sustain conviction on a theory not presented to jury.
Was the June 22 payment sufficient independent proof of conspiracy despite inducement?	Govt: The check was a clear act of joining the conspiracy and justified conviction.	Barta: The payment resulted from government inducement; entrapment negates liability.	Held: Payment obtained through inducement — cannot sustain conviction; acquittal required.

United States v. Mayfield, 771 F.3d 417 (7th Cir. 2014) (framework for inducement and "plus factors" in entrapment analysis)
United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) (predisposition is principal element of entrapment defense)
Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992) (government conduct can create criminality where none existed)
Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958) (entrapped-as-a-matter-of-law precedent)
United States v. Theodosopoulos, 48 F.3d 1438 (7th Cir. 1995) (standard of proof and review in entrapment cases)
United States v. Plowman, 700 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2012) (contacts/duration relevant to inducement inquiry)
United States v. Millet, 510 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2007) (promises of reward considered in inducement analysis)
United States v. Johnson, 592 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2010) (elements of conspiracy conviction)
United States v. Garcia, 562 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1977) (mere association/presence insufficient for conspiracy)
United States v. Podolsky, 798 F.2d 177 (7th Cir. 1986) (conditional agreement and when a condition precludes conspiratorial liability)
United States v. Melchor-Lopez, 627 F.2d 886 (9th Cir. 1980) (distinguishing agreement to negotiate from criminal conspiracy)