United States v. Jason Harriman
970 F.3d 1048
| 8th Cir. | 2020Background
- Harriman had a history of domestic violence and prior convictions (kidnapping, domestic assault); he blamed his ex-wife D.H. for his imprisonment and repeatedly threatened her while incarcerated.
- While imprisoned, Harriman told inmate William Risinger he wanted D.H. (and her boyfriend) killed; Risinger contacted law enforcement.
- An ATF undercover agent (posing as a hitman) communicated with Harriman by phone and email, met him in prison for a nearly two‑hour recorded visit, and sent murder‑for‑hire contracts; Harriman returned a signed contract and arranged a car as partial payment.
- The agent repeatedly told Harriman he could walk away and that signing/returning the contract was Harriman’s choice; forensic testing showed Harriman’s fingerprints on the contract and indented writing indicating an allegedly exculpatory note.
- A jury convicted Harriman of two counts of murder‑for‑hire (18 U.S.C. § 1958); the district court sentenced him to 240 months and three years supervised release.
- On appeal Harriman argued entrapment, denial of motions for new counsel and new trial, and ineffective assistance of counsel; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Harriman's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence on entrapment | ATF induced Harriman; entrapment instruction should lead to acquittal | Agent used permissible undercover tactics; Harriman initiated and persisted | Affirmed conviction — no inducement; jurors could find predisposition |
| Motion for new trial (entrapment-focused) | District court improperly weighed evidence for prosecution and should have granted new trial | Court properly weighed evidence and found verdict not a miscarriage of justice | Denial affirmed — district court permissibly weighed evidence and found ample proof of intent |
| Motions for new counsel | Counsel conflict, breakdown in communication, inadequate investigation | Complaints were tactical or unrelated; no irreconcilable conflict | Denial affirmed — no justifiable dissatisfaction shown |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (direct appeal) | Counsel failed to investigate/present exculpatory evidence | Record does not show obvious, provable deficiency on its face | Not addressed on merits — claim requires further factual development via §2255; not exceptional for direct review |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (1988) (defines entrapment elements)
- Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992) (government may use undercover operations)
- United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) (entrapment when gov't implants criminal design)
- United States v. Myers, 575 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2009) (predisposition analysis)
- United States v. Combs, 827 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2016) (burden shifting in entrapment)
- United States v. Ardrey, 739 F.3d 1189 (8th Cir. 2014) (entrapment framework)
- United States v. Warren, 788 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2015) (inducement requires more than opportunity)
- United States v. Strubberg, 929 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2019) (sufficiency review standard)
- United States v. Petroske, 928 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard for new trial review)
- United States v. Buck, 661 F.3d 364 (8th Cir. 2011) (adequate inquiry into claims for new counsel)
- United States v. Boone, 437 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2006) (new counsel standards)
- United States v. Sanchez-Gonzalez, 643 F.3d 626 (8th Cir. 2011) (ineffective‑assistance review on direct appeal)