United States v. Salinas-Acevedo
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12369
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Salinas-Acevedo, a police officer, was targeted in an undercover sting (Operation Guard Shack) involving sham drug deals; middlemen (Rullán-Santiago and Méndez-Pérez) solicited him to participate.
- Record shows at most three documented solicitations over about ten days; Salinas initially declined (citing childcare) and later participated in a later staged deal; he was facing financial strain with a second child on the way.
- The government agent (Camacho) communicated with the middlemen; he expressly instructed Méndez-Pérez not to pressure Salinas and told Rullán-Santiago to “get that guy” but also referenced finding an alternate participant.
- Salinas sought to present an entrapment defense (derivative entrapment theory via middlemen); district court refused an entrapment instruction; the panel affirmed and denied rehearing/en banc.
- Majority held Salinas failed to show the required “plus” factor (improper government overreach) because repeated opportunities alone were insufficient and there was no evidence Camacho instructed the middlemen to use improper inducement.
- Dissent argued the record supports a jury question: repeated solicitations combined with Salinas’s financial vulnerability and middleman pressure meet the inducement/pr predisposition inquiry and required an entrapment instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to entrapment jury instruction | Salinas: repeated solicitations and financial need created a reasonable doubt that he was induced, warranting entrapment instruction (derivative theory) | Government: solicitations were mere opportunities; agent did not instruct middlemen to use improper tactics; no overreach | Denied — no entrapment instruction because no evidence agent requested specific improper inducement; mere repeated offers + financial distress insufficient |
| Derivative entrapment via middlemen | Salinas: middlemen’s recruitment counts as government inducement when agent targeted him through them after prior attempts | Government: agent didn’t direct middlemen to employ improper inducements; at least one middleman was told not to pressure | Denied — Salinas met targeting elements but failed to show agent requested/encouraged specified improper inducement |
| Standard of review / preservation | Salinas: (assumed preserved) entitlement judged de novo; evidence should be viewed in light most favorable to allow jury to decide | Government: court may resolve sufficiency threshold and refuse instruction when record lacks evidence of inducement | Court applied de novo review but concluded evidence insufficient to create a jury question |
| Role of repeated solicitations as "plus factor" | Salinas/dissent: repeated persistent requests themselves can constitute improper inducement under precedents like Gendron/Kessee | Majority: repeated offers alone aren’t enough; a plus factor (pressure, coercion, exploitation of sudden vulnerability) is required | Court: repeated entreaties may be a plus factor in some cases, but not on this record — here no evidence of arm‑twisting or exploitation beyond ordinary opportunity |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gendron, 18 F.3d 955 (1st Cir.) (repeated suggestions to financially vulnerable defendant can justify entrapment instruction)
- United States v. Luisi, 482 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2007) (derivative entrapment elements for agent acting through middleman)
- United States v. Sánchez-Berríos, 424 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2005) (entrapment requires inducement plus lack of predisposition)
- United States v. González-Pérez, 778 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. 2015) (no entrapment where government employed no undue coercion; financial need alone insufficient)
- United States v. Baltas, 236 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2001) (inducement is opportunity plus a ‘‘plus’’ factor such as excessive pressure or taking advantage of noncriminal motive)
- United States v. Kessee, 992 F.2d 1001 (9th Cir. 1993) (repeated entreaties became successful only after defendant lost jobs—example of inducement)
- Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992) (government overreaching can produce convictions of otherwise law‑abiding citizens)