United States v. Mandel
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15559
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Mandel and Antoniou owned G & D Excavating as 50-50 partners amid escalating financial and ownership disputes.
- A partnership dispute led Mandel to be locked out of the business premises by Antoniou in October 2008.
- Dwyer, acting as a government informant, covertly recorded Mandel discussing a murder-for-hire plan against Antoniou.
- Mandel's discussions spanned in-person meetings and cell-phone communications from August to December 2008, using his car and cell phone in the plan.
- A grand jury charged Mandel with multiple counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) for use of interstate commerce facilities to commit murder-for-hire, plus related counts, resulting in six convictions at trial and a 138-month sentence.
- Mandel contested entrapment and the scope of federal jurisdiction, appealing after district court denied post-trial motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrapment in using a cell phone for murder-for-hire | Mandel was entrapped; government induced him to discuss via cell phone. | Government merely invited use of interstate facility; no entrapment or predisposition shown. | No entrapment; convictions affirmed. |
| Intrastate use of an automobile as a facility of interstate commerce | Car use falls within Congress's commerce power as an instrumentality. | Intrastate car use is not within Commerce Clause reach. | No plain error; intrastate car use valid under §1958(a). |
| Archer-type manufacturing of jurisdiction | Archer allows government to manufacture jurisdiction via interstate action by agent. | Archer prohibits manufacturing jurisdiction; entrapment exceptions apply. | Archer does not control; no jurisdiction manufactured; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Richeson, 338 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 2003) (cell phone/use of facility in interstate commerce sufficient under §1958)
- United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2001) (interpretation of 'facility' to include intrastate use of interstate facilities)
- United States v. Archer, 486 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1973) (manufacturing jurisdiction via agent’s interstate action; narrow approach)
- United States v. Podolsky, 798 F.2d 177 (7th Cir. 1986) ( Archer-like issues; entrapment considerations)
- United States v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2007) (cell phones as instrumentalities of interstate commerce)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (recognizes three categories of activity Congress may regulate under Commerce Clause)