US v. Turner, No. 03-2608. The defendants were convicted of trying to rob an armored car facility. He was charged under the Hobbs Act under the both the weapon parts and the conspiracy parts. The defendant argues that he was “vicariously entrapped” because “...the FBI agents [via a third party] induced him to participate in the crime so that they could pressure him to provide information regarding the 1990 robbery of the Isabella Stewart Gardener Museum in Boston, about which they thought he had knowledge.” He also makes a Brady argument, but he can’t show prejudice. So, the government really doesn’t need to comply with it, Brady, I guess.
As to sentencing, the First notes that there is a “narrow theoretical “category of defendants that go to trial that might still be taking responsibility – people that challenge the government’s conduct with the entrapment defense. But, this isn’t it. The First’s analysis of this issue is really disappointing.
As to the entrapment claim, the First says it is harmless. It is framed in terms of a jury instruction, and the defendant argues that the “the instruction improperly informed the jury that the government agent must initially ‘target’ the defendant may have more traction.” But, I guess that issue is out there.
A real American would be getting ready to read the rest of this post.
Likewise, evidentiary challenges are also considered harmless, or they are either cumulative or relevant to rebut the entrapment defense. The fact that the codefendants trials were not severed is also rejected.
The also holds that a Hobbs Act conspiracy is a "crime of violence" for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) because, distinguishing Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) and splitting with the 10th in United States v. King, 979 F.2d 801 (10th Cir. 1992), the First says that all that matters is whether the defendants form a conspire to do something violent.
Jury instruction challenges regarding the interstate nexus fail, and the First says that Lopez doesn’t mean much.
On the Facts, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding attempted robbery is rejected.
And, a Booker remand is rejected, because he wasn’t sentenced at the bottom of the guidelines, and he didn’t really show why the sentence wasn’t reasonable.
Comments