United States v. Leslie Mayfield
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21525
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Mayfield was charged with conspiracy to rob a stash house with Potts and an undercover ATF agent Gomez; Potts was an informant who identified Mayfield as a target.
- The district court granted the government’s limine motion to preclude an entrapment defense, and the jury was not instructed on entrapment.
- Mayfield proffered evidence of government inducement and lack of predisposition; the district court discounted it and denied trial on entrapment.
- The Seventh Circuit granted rehearing en banc to clarify entrapment doctrine and procedure.
- The en banc court held entrapment is a jury question with two elements (inducement and predisposition) that are related but distinct, and that the defense may be raised pretrial; it vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- The dissent argued against the majority’s two-element framework and urged application of Jacobson under which predisposition must be established before government acts
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mayfield presented sufficient entrapment evidence to warrant a jury instruction | Mayfield showed inducement and lack of predisposition | District court properly precluded entrapment | Remanded for trial with entrapment instruction |
| Who bears the burden of proof and whether pretrial ruling can foreclose entrapment | Burden on government to prove predisposition beyond reasonable doubt | Judge may preclude entrapment pretrial if no substantial evidence | Government bears burden; entrapment issue controllable at trial; remand for new trial |
| Definition and scope of inducement and its relationship to predisposition | Inducement includes persisting government conduct beyond mere solicitation | Inducement limited to extraordinary actions beyond ordinary opportunities | Inducement defined to require more than ordinary solicitation; predisposition remains relevant |
Key Cases Cited
- Casey v. United States, 276 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1928) (entrapment discussed in trap context; early recognition of defense)
- Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (U.S. 1932) (recognizes government misconduct limits; entrapment defense history)
- Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (U.S. 1958) (two-element entrapment; predisposition key; initial inducement alone insufficient)
- Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1992) (predisposition must be prior to government acts; elaborate predisposition standard)
- United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1973) (entrapment is a non-constitutional, subjective defense; predisposition focus)
- Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1988) (entrapment is a jury question; sufficient evidence requires instruction)
- Hollingsworth, 27 F.3d 1196 (7th Cir. 1994) (en banc definition of predisposition; framework for inducement/predisposition)
- Kaminski, 703 F.2d 1004 (7th Cir. 1983) (multifactor predisposition test adopted; tailor analysis)
- Pillado, 656 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2011) (inducement must be more than ordinary; outlines standards for trial)
- Theodosopoulos, 48 F.3d 1438 (7th Cir. 1995) (predisposition evidence and government inducement interplay)