United States v. William Clarett, 907 F.3d 1100

In 2015 Travis Hayden was murdered; eyewitness Shamonique Wilson identified William Clarett as the shooter.
Clarett, charged in state court and detained in St. Louis County Jail, reconnected with Derek Petty, a former friend who sought cooperation with federal prosecutors to obtain leniency on his own federal charges.
Petty told prosecutors Clarett planned to have Wilson killed, provided a scrap of paper with her name, and proposed a sting; after a proffer the government gave Petty a wiretapped phone and tasked him with introducing Clarett to undercover Detective Jordan Exum.
Over jail calls and in-person meetings Clarett discussed arranging Wilson’s murder with Exum (via Petty), paid $510 as a down payment, offered a rifle, and described displaying the body; Clarett was later charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1958 for conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire.
At trial Clarett did not testify or present evidence but sought an entrapment jury instruction, arguing Petty was a de facto government agent who induced the crime; the district court denied the instruction for lack of evidence that Petty acted as a government agent or induced Clarett.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding there was no basis to find Petty acted on the government’s behalf when he induced Clarett and thus no entitlement to an entrapment instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clarett was entitled to an entrapment instruction	Clarett: Petty was a de facto government agent from the start and induced the plot, so jury should be instructed on entrapment	Government: Petty acted as a private individual until after initial interactions; later government involvement was limited and Petty did not induce on government’s behalf	Court: No. Insufficient evidence Petty was acting for the government when he induced Clarett, so no entrapment instruction required
Whether Petty’s post-proffer role (wiretapped phone/introduction to undercover) converted earlier interactions into government action	Clarett: Petty’s cooperation efforts and later tasking by prosecutors show an ongoing agency relationship	Government: Only limited government action occurred after Petty’s second proffer; the recorded calls merely provided opportunity, not government inducement	Court: The two recorded calls and subsequent conduct did not show government-induced enticement; actual authority requires principal action and was not established

United States v. Wynn, 827 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for denial of requested jury instruction)
United States v. Young, 613 F.3d 735 (8th Cir. 2010) (entrapment instruction required only if reasonable jury could find entrapment)
Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1988) (elements of entrapment: government inducement and defendant lack of predisposition)
United States v. Stanton, 973 F.2d 608 (8th Cir. 1992) (examples of inducement beyond mere opportunity)
Schaffart v. ONEOK, Inc., 686 F.3d 461 (8th Cir. 2012) (actual authority requires principal action; apparent authority insufficient)