United States v. Justin Spentz
653 F.3d 815
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Undercover ATF storefront operation aimed to identify violent individuals by offering a crime opportunity; Reed selected as a target based on prior armed robbery history.
- Defendants Justin Spentz and Steven Golden were present at the alleged robbery discussion; an undercover agent described a stash-house robbery involving $2.5 million of cocaine and armed guards.
- On May 15, 2008, defendants joined Reed at the Ice House and were directed to a warehouse to prepare for the robbery; agents arrested them upon arrival.
- Defendants claimed they were unaware of the plan and sought an entrapment instruction as an alternate theory of innocence.
- The district court denied the entrapment instruction due to insufficient inducement evidence, and the defendants were convicted on multiple counts.
- On appeal, the court analyzes whether there was sufficient inducement evidence to warrant an entrapment instruction and reviews the district court’s factual ruling for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entrapment instruction should have been given | Spentz/Golden contend government inducement; evidence supports entrapment | No inducement evidence; plan was offered but not coercive | No error; no inducement evidence required entrapment instruction |
| Standard of review for denial of entrapment instruction | Abuse of discretion; factual sufficiency supports instruction | Legal correctness of instruction not met by record | Abuse of discretion standard applies; requisite factual showing missing |
| Whether the government’s plan equates to inducement | Large potential reward constitutes inducement | Reward was criminal payoff, not non-criminal inducement | Reward size not sufficient to constitute inducement; district court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kessee, 992 F.2d 1001 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard on entrapment issues remains unresolved at times)
- United States v. Heredia, 483 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc; clarifies two-part approach to appellate review of instructions)
- Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1988) (defendant entitled to instruction on any recognized defense with some evidence)
- United States v. Rhodes, 713 F.2d 463 (9th Cir. 1983) (inducement and lack of predisposition required for entrapment)
- United States v. Busby, 780 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1986) (entrapment instruction given only if defendant shows inducement and lack of predisposition)