United States v. Wright, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3493

Wright, a deputy sheriff and parish jailer for EBRSO, was charged with attempting to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and with possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
An undercover drug deal with Cordasco, arranged through informant activity and surveillance, forms the evidentiary backdrop for Wright's alleged offenses.
Wright offered money and cocaine to Cordasco to drop a prior state firearms charge, triggering ATF involvement and subsequent arrest.
Before trial, Wright sought a public authority defense and later unsuccessfully proposed a § 885(d) immunity instruction requiring authorization to commit the charged conduct.
The district court instructed the jury that immunity under § 885(d) requires authorization by a qualified official to participate in the charged activity, and excluded evidence of Wright’s prior assistance in narcotics investigations.
The jury convicted Wright on the two remaining counts, and Wright moved for a new trial, which the district court denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 885(d) immunize Wright as a duly authorized officer?	Wright argues he was authorized as a deputy sheriff to enforce drug laws and thus immune.	Wright contends authorization and lawful engagement were present, entitling immunity under § 885(d).	No blanket immunity; authority must be shown for the charged conduct.
Did the district court err in instructing the jury about authorization rather than applying public authority defense?	The instruction properly reflected § 885(d) authorization as a defense to the charged acts.	The instruction impermissibly framed a public authority defense and misdescribed the immunity.	District court's instruction was correct; it required authorization for the charged conduct.
Was the exclusion of Wright's prior narcotics-investigation evidence erroneous?	Prior involvement showed relevant authorization and practice of undercover work.	Prior acts were irrelevant to whether he was authorized in the instant case.	No abuse of discretion; exclusion was proper.
Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Wright's Rule 33 motion for a new trial?	New trial warranted due to instructional error and evidentiary rulings.	No miscarriage of justice; weight of evidence supported the verdict.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.

U.S. v. Fuller, 162 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 1998) (immunity depends on authorized duties; mayor example)
U.S. v. Reeves, 730 F.2d 1189 (8th Cir. 1984) (sheriff's duties to enforce law; authority to engage in conduct)
U.S. v. Williams, 610 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
U.S. v. Santos, 589 F.3d 759 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard for evaluating jury instructions and evidentiary rulings)
U.S. v. Guevara, 408 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2005) (statutory construction in review of immunity questions)
U.S. v. Ho, 311 F.3d 589 (5th Cir. 2002) (statutory interpretation by the Fifth Circuit)
Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Tarmac Roofing Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2002) (standards for reviewing denial of jury instructions)