United States v. Ondray McKnight
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23317
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- McKnight was convicted at trial of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and one count of using a telephone to distribute a controlled substance; another telecom count was acquitted.
- DEA and Chicago Police conducted a four-year investigation of Victor Thompson’s Gangster Disciples drug network; Denton, a government witness, was later central to the case.
- Evidence included wiretaps with warrants, hundreds of intercepted calls, and multiple controlled purchases; Denton identified McKnight in numerous calls and drug transactions.
- The defense challenged Denton’s credibility and highlighted Denton’s cooperation for a favorable sentence; the government relied on Denton’s testimony and other witnesses.
- During jury instruction, the government proposed a deceptively-phrased instruction approving deceptive investigative techniques; the district court gave the instruction over defense objection.
- At sentencing, the district court imposed a $1,000 fine and directed payment through the IFRP, which the court later modified by striking the mandatory participation requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the deceptive investigative techniques instruction was proper | McKnight contends the instruction misstates law and confuses credibility evaluation. | McKnight argues the instruction was improper and prejudicial as to Denton's credibility. | Instruction not reversible error; not prejudicial. |
| Whether mandatory IFRP participation was proper | McKnight argues IFRP participation is voluntary and mandating it was plain error. | Government argues IFRP participation is permissible, but at most only a condition-like program. | Strike the mandatory IFRP requirement; modify sentence to reflect voluntariness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206 (Supreme Court, 1966) (government may use decoys and conceal identity of agents in crime detection)
- United States v. Childs, 447 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2006) (impeachment material disclosure; issue of deceptive techniques not reached)
- United States v. Tanner, 628 F.3d 890 (7th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for jury instruction)
- United States v. Noel, 581 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 2009) (trial court discretion in formulating jury instructions)
- United States v. Borrasi, 639 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 2011) (deferential review of jury instructions; misstatement allowed if not prejudicial)
- United States v. Curry, 538 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
- United States v. Munoz, 610 F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 2010) (IFRP participation is voluntary; plain error review when not preserved)
- United States v. Boyd, 608 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2010) (IFRP participation is voluntary; modification of sentence appropriate)