United States v. Stallworth
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18479
7th Cir.2011Background
- Undercover FBI sting targeted Harvey, Illinois police corruption; Stallworth engaged in a drug deal with undercover Vargas.
- Stallworth admitted to participating in a plan with Vargas to facilitate drug transactions and later showed an intent to assist with future drug deals.
- Stallworth forged a Harvey Police Department report to impede the investigation, leading to an additional falsification charge.
- August 11, 2008, Stallworth accompanied Vargas for a staged drug transaction involving fake cocaine while holding a bag containing the contraband.
- Stallworth was convicted on two counts (attempted possession with intent to distribute and falsifying a police report) and sentenced to 12 years concurrent terms.
- On appeal, Stallworth challenges entrapment, exclusion of a recording, sufficiency of evidence for intent to possess, and related Brady/indictment issues; the Seventh Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was entrapment instruction warranted given predisposition evidence? | Government induced participation; Stallworth predisposed. | Stallworth lacked predisposition; entrapment instruction required. | No reversible error; Stallworth predisposed, so instructionnotrequired. |
| Was the Weathers recording properly excluded as hearsay/improper impeachment? | Recording would show state of mind and impeach Weathers. | Recording indecipherable and not fit Rule 803(3); impeachment not shown. | District court did not abuse discretion; recording excluded. |
| Was there sufficient evidence of intent to possess (and control) the fake drugs? | Holding and transporting bags sufficed for possession; intent to distribute shown. | Kitchen controls insufficient; Stallworth not in possession. | Sufficient evidence of possession and intentional conduct supporting conviction. |
| Did the government violate Brady/Youngblood by failing to preserve surveillance recordings? | Missing recordings were favorable and material to trial. | No suppression or bad faith; no material Brady evidence; Youngblood claim fails. | No Brady suppression; no bad faith; Youngblood claim denied. |
| Was the indictment sufficient to charge attempted possession with intent to distribute? | Indictment adequately alleged elements and specific August 11 conduct. | Indictment need not specify sub‑type of violation; elements/case facts must be charged. | Indictment valid; sufficient notice and element pleading. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hall, 608 F.3d 340 (7th Cir. 2010) (entrapment predisposition framework applied)
- United States v. Manzella, 791 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir. 1986) (predisposition and government inducement distinguish entrapment scenarios)
- United States v. Blassingame, 197 F.3d 271 (7th Cir. 1999) (predisposition factor central to entrapment analysis)
- United States v. Kitchen, 57 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 1995) (possession requires control; momentary holding can suffice if control shown)
- United States v. Hunte, 196 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 1999) (joint possession where defendant had access and contributed to control)
- United States v. Fassnacht, 332 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2003) (indictment sufficiency and notice functions)