Tuesday, April 09, 2013

U.S. v. Yuman-Hernandez, No. 11-50219 (04-08-13) (Goodwin with Fletcher and Korman, Sr. DJ)
It seemed like such an easy way to make a lot of money: knock over a stash house.  There were 20 to 25 kilos of cocaine inside, and it promised to be an easy in and out.  The problem?  The courier who identified the house and contacted the defendant was an undercover law enforcement agent.  The defendant and his crew gathered in the parking lot the morning of the robbery, and were arrested.  The defendant argued for sentencing entrapment.  He said that he was willing to commit a robbery but would not have done it for that amount of drugs unless pressed by the agent.  The 9th affirmed the denial of the sentencing entrapment argument, finding no abuse of discretion.  The 9th did take the opportunity to make clear the standard for sentencing entrapment:  the defendant has to show lack of intent or lack of opportunity.  He does not have to show both.  Moreover, although there is language about outrageous government misconduct underpinning the doctrine, outrageous misconduct is not a required element.


Post a Comment

<< Home