Denial of Entrapment Defense, Request for CI Disclosure Upheld

United States v. Vincent, ___ F.3d ___ , 2010 WL 2902748 (10th Cir. 2010) (Ut.). The Court holds that the district court properly denied an entrapment defense and properly denied disclosure of the confidential informant (CI). The DEA, unsuccessful in its undercover buy from Mr. Big, enlisted a CI to hook them another person who knew Mr. Big, to turn that person into a CI for them. So the CI arranged for defendant to make a sale to an undercover DEA–the basis for the entrapment defense–and when Defendant was busted, he was asked to be a CI against Mr. Big. D agreed, but proceeded to expose the undercover DEA, and it all went south for Defendant. Court says the standard for getting the instruction is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment, with evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant. Applying the standard in this case, the Court acknowledges that the CI did some pretty heavy duty inducing and that the CI was a government agent. However, the Court says infiltration is a very important tool cops use to get into nasty drug organizations, and concludes that “a reasonable jury could not conclude [that the CI’s inducements, etc.] created a substantial risk that an otherwise law abiding citizen would take up the methamphetamine trade.” On disclosing the CI: that is reviewed under abuse of discretion standard. There is strong public interest in protecting against disclosure is, but that must give way when the information is “relevant and helpful to the defense” or is “essential to a fair determination of a cause.” Here, Defendant apparently knew who the CI was, and his request for the entrapment defense was based on the assumption of the CI’s identity, but since he was correctly denied an entrapment defense, the CI’s identity disclosure was not useful to him anyway.