United States v. Michael Harris
773 F.3d 837
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- ATF agents, using an informant (Moore) and undercover Agent Gomez (as "Loquito"), recruited Blitch, Carwell, Washington, and Harris for a fictional plan to rob a drug stash house guarded by armed cartel members.
- Recorded meetings show defendants discussing expected yields (~15 kg of cocaine), weapons, tying up occupants, splitting proceeds, and plans to repackage and distribute the drugs.
- Defendants rode with Gomez to a storage facility where ATF executed an arrest operation; all four were arrested while armed and with items (masks, tape, gloves) consistent with the planned robbery.
- On retrial the defendants were acquitted of attempt but convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5+ kg of cocaine, being felons in possession, and carrying firearms in furtherance of a crime; each received a 25-year statutory-minimum sentence.
- On appeal Harris and Carwell principally challenged the district court's preclusion of an entrapment defense; other issues raised included sufficiency of the evidence, an evidentiary ruling about transcript attribution, and sentencing challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred in precluding entrapment defense | Government: evidence shows ordinary solicitation, not improper inducement; defendants were predisposed. | Harris/Carwell: government induced participation by promising large drugs/cash; Harris also pointed to apparent reluctance (refusing van/gate). | Affirmed: no extraordinary inducement; defendants predisposed; entrapment properly precluded. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥5 kg | Government: recorded planning, distribution plans, and statements show agreement to obtain and distribute large cocaine quantity. | Defendants: planned robbery alone does not necessarily prove intent to distribute such a quantity. | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence and defendants’ statements support a rational jury finding conspiracy and §924(c) firearm offenses. |
| Confrontation/evidentiary challenge to transcript attribution | Government: final transcript accurately admitted; jury instructed to judge accuracy. | Harris: should cross-examine Agent Gomez about draft transcript discrepancy to show misattribution. | Affirmed: district court reasonably excluded draft-based inquiry; any error harmless beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Sentencing entrapment/manipulation and Eighth Amendment proportionality | Government: sentences reflect statutory minimums and §§3553(a) factors; no sentencing manipulation. | Defendants: government persistence increased offense level; 25-year sentences cruel and unusual. | Affirmed: no sentencing entrapment or manipulation shown; statutory-minimum 25-year terms do not violate Eighth Amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992) (entrapment doctrine protects those not predisposed from government-created crimes)
- Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932) (foundational entrapment decision)
- Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958) (entrapment where government duped a defendant into crime)
- United States v. Pillado, 656 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2011) (elements of entrapment and importance of predisposition)
- United States v. Hall, 608 F.3d 340 (7th Cir. 2010) (stash-house solicitation is ordinary opportunity, not inducement)
- United States v. Millet, 510 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2007) (promise of drugs/cash in a stash-house sting does not necessarily constitute extraordinary inducement)
- United States v. Lewis, 641 F.3d 773 (7th Cir. 2011) (circumstantial evidence can support inference of distribution intent)
- United States v. Spagnola, 632 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 2011) (plan to obtain cocaine for redistribution supports conspiracy conviction)
- United States v. Knox, 573 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2009) (definition of sentencing entrapment)
- United States v. White, 519 F.3d 342 (7th Cir. 2008) (sentencing entrapment discussion)
- United States v. Wilson, 129 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 1997) (limits on district court reducing below statutory minimum for sentencing manipulation)
- United States v. Gross, 437 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2006) (high bar for Eighth Amendment proportionality challenges)
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) (proportionality doctrine rejects leniency for severe repeat-offender sentences)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (upholding severe noncapital sentence and setting high proportionality threshold)
- Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370 (1982) (rejecting proportionality challenge to lengthy sentences)