United States v. Walter Combs
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12360
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- ATF conducted a reverse-sting targeting an existing home-invasion/robbery crew after investigating Kevin Nailor’s illegal firearm sales; undercover agent Leon Edmond posed as a cartel courier planning a stash-house robbery.
- Nailor recruited Walter Combs and Shatondi Rice; recorded meetings show Combs enthusiastically describing the crew’s robbery experience, proposing to kill guards, and planning to sell his share of cocaine.
- Edmond provided a realistic robbery scenario, agreed to rent a getaway vehicle, and repeatedly offered opportunities to back out; the crew proceeded to procure firearms and meet at a prearranged location.
- ATF arrested Nailor, Combs, and Rice during the operation; two loaded .22 handguns were recovered.
- A federal grand jury charged Combs with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute >5 kg cocaine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and witness tampering; jury convicted on the first two counts.
- Combs moved to dismiss for outrageous government conduct and sought an entrapment jury instruction; district court denied both, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed (sentence: total 186 months).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indictment should be dismissed for outrageous government conduct (due process) | Combs: ATF’s undercover operation crossed constitutional line by inducing the crime | Government: Sting and subterfuge were permissible investigative techniques targeting a preexisting criminal crew | Denied — conduct fell within permissible sting operations and did not shock universal sense of justice |
| Whether entrapment jury instruction was required | Combs: Government induced him into the conspiracy and he lacked predisposition, especially to large-quantity (≥5 kg) trafficking | Government: Combs was predisposed; he eagerly accepted and planned the robbery and distribution | Denied — insufficient evidence of inducement without predisposition; strong evidence of predisposition |
| Whether prior small-quantity drug activity precludes predisposition to large-quantity conspiracy ("sentencing entrapment") | Combs: Lack of prior kilogram-level trafficking shows no predisposition to conspire to distribute ≥5 kg | Government: Lack of prior large-quantity sales shows opportunity gap, not lack of predisposition; Combs’s statements show readiness to profit from a large job | Denied — readiness to exploit the profitable opportunity shows predisposition to larger-quantity trafficking |
| Admissibility of entrapment evidence at trial (related to instruction request) | Combs: Evidence supported presenting entrapment as defense and instructing jury | Government: Evidence insufficient for instruction though defendant could present evidence | Court allowed evidence but refused instruction — ultimately held instruction not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) (due process limit on government investigative methods)
- Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932) (artifice and stratagem permissible in undercover operations)
- Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992) (mere opportunity insufficient for entrapment)
- United States v. Twigg, 588 F.2d 373 (3d Cir. 1978) (government furnished means to create criminal enterprise — found outrageous)
- Greene v. United States, 454 F.2d 783 (9th Cir. 1971) (government’s continuous, central role in operation can be so intrusive as to violate due process)
- United States v. King, 351 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2003) (recognizing narrow due-process outrageous-conduct defense)
- United States v. Warren, 788 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2015) (stings presenting realistic stash-house scenarios are routine investigative tools)
- United States v. Kendrick, 423 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2005) (entrapment burden-shifting framework)
- United States v. Myers, 575 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2009) (immediate, enthusiastic acceptance of a government-offered criminal opportunity indicates predisposition)