United States v. William Clarett , 907 F.3d 1100 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 17-3057
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    William Clarett
    Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
    ____________
    Submitted: September 28, 2018
    Filed: November 6, 2018
    ____________
    Before WOLLMAN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.
    William Clarett was convicted of conspiracy to commit, and use of a facility of
    interstate commerce in the commission of, murder for hire in violation of 18 U.S.C.
    § 1958(a). He appeals the district court’s refusal to give an entrapment instruction.
    We affirm.1
    1
    The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    I.     Background
    In 2015, Travis Hayden was murdered in St. Louis County, Missouri.
    Shamonique Wilson, the sole eyewitness, identified William Clarett as the murderer.
    Clarett was charged with Hayden’s murder and, while awaiting trial in the St. Louis
    County Jail, he reunited with Derek Petty, a high school friend who was awaiting trial
    on unrelated federal charges. Petty had previously given an unfruitful proffer
    interview that earned him no leniency from the government. Unbeknownst to Clarett,
    Petty was hoping to acquire information on other inmates with a goal of obtaining
    leniency.
    According to Petty’s trial testimony, Clarett frequently discussed his case with
    Petty, including his plans to have Wilson killed. Clarett told Petty that he had
    unsuccessfully recruited two people to “get at” Wilson, and was looking to hire
    someone else to do the job. Petty suggested to Clarett that he might know somebody
    who could do it and Clarett expressed interest. At some point after this conversation
    Clarett handed Petty a scrap of paper with Shamonique Wilson’s name handwritten
    on it.
    Petty then wrote to the Assistant United States Attorney prosecuting his case,
    relating what he had learned about Clarett and his plan to do away with Wilson. The
    government offered Petty another chance to proffer during which he turned over the
    scrap of paper with Wilson’s name on it. Petty suggested that the government should
    set up a sting against Clarett using Detective Jordan Exum. Petty knew Det. Exum
    from his involvement in Petty’s case. Petty worked with Exum to create a credible
    back-story explaining their fabricated relationship. Petty also agreed to put Clarett in
    touch with Exum via a wiretapped cellphone. After receiving the cellphone, Petty
    made two calls to Exum with Clarett participating. During the first call, Petty simply
    introduced Clarett, who then proceeded to have a coded conversation about putting
    -2-
    Exum in touch with an outside accomplice. During the second call, Petty provided
    Exum with the telephone number for the accomplice, then handed the phone to Clarett
    who confirmed (again in code) that the accomplice had information related to
    Shamonique Wilson’s location.
    During the next two weeks, Clarett had several conversations with Exum, the
    purpose of which was to ostensibly arrange Wilson’s murder. These conversations
    took place both by jailhouse phone calls and in person. Clarett eventually paid Exum
    $510 as a down-payment, offered to provide a high-powered rifle, and suggested that
    he and Exum should hang out after Clarett’s release. During the final planning
    Clarett opted to have the body displayed “in a trophy case” as an example for all to
    see. Based on these activities Clarett was charged with Conspiracy to Commit
    Murder-For-Hire in July of 2016.
    At trial, Clarett did not present a defense case other than by cross-examination.
    He did not testify, call witnesses, or present any evidence. Clarett’s sole defense was
    that he had been entrapped by Derek Petty, who he asserted was a de facto
    government agent from the start. Clarett requested that the court instruct the jury on
    entrapment consistent with Model 8th Circuit Criminal Instruction 9.01 – Entrapment.
    The district court declined to instruct the jury on entrapment because it believed that
    there was insufficient evidence to raise a jury question that Derek Petty was a
    government agent. The court also found no evidence of inducement by Petty. Finally,
    the court suggested that Clarett was predisposed to hire someone to murder Wilson.
    II.    Discussion
    We review the denial of a requested instruction on entrapment de novo. United
    States v. Wynn, 
    827 F.3d 778
    , 786 (8th Cir. 2016). A defendant is entitled to an
    entrapment instruction only if “there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable
    -3-
    jury could find entrapment.” United States v. Young, 
    613 F.3d 735
    , 746 (8th Cir.
    2010)(quoting Mathews v. United States, 
    485 U.S. 58
    , 62 (1988)).
    “[A] valid entrapment defense has two related elements: government
    inducement of the crime, and a lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant to
    engage in the criminal 
    conduct.” 485 U.S. at 63
    . “Inducement may take different
    forms, including pressure, assurances that a person is not doing anything wrong,
    persuasion, fraudulent representations, threats, coercive tactics, harassment, promises
    of reward, or pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship.” United States v. Stanton,
    
    973 F.2d 608
    , 610 (8th Cir. 1992)(quotations omitted). It consists of more than just
    providing an opportunity to break the law. 
    Id. While entrapment
    cases do not typically turn on whether any inducement was
    at the hands of a government agent or a private entity, that question is at the heart of
    this case. In order for a person to be a government agent for entrapment purposes the
    person must have authority to act for the government. The deceptive nature of sting
    operations precludes apparent authority, leaving only actual authority for
    consideration. “Whether express or implied, actual authority requires action by the
    principal.” Schaffart v. ONEOK, Inc., 
    686 F.3d 461
    , 471 (8th Cir. 2012). Clarett
    argues that Petty was a de facto government agent from the very start of the
    discussions between Petty and Clarett. Clarett points to Petty’s urgent need to
    ingratiate himself with the government to obtain a sentence reduction for cooperation.
    He asserts that because the potential for cooperation was open that Petty had “terms
    of cooperation,”2 and that Petty may have believed he had an ongoing agreement with
    the government before his first interaction with Clarett. Even if we assume them to
    2
    The phrase originates from Petty’s May 2016 letter to prosecutors, wherein
    Petty stated that he had “been working nonstop trying to keep [his] terms of
    cooperation open because [he] truly need[s] some relief.” (Tr. Vol. II, p. 40; Gov. Exh.
    3). Until his second proffer interview, there is no other evidence of any arrangement
    between Petty and the government. Petty clarified at trial that he “never really agreed
    to any terms,” 
    id. at 53,
    which is consistent with the record.
    -4-
    be true, none of these circumstances, alone or in aggregate, could support the jury
    finding that Petty was acting on behalf of the government from the outset of his
    communications with Clarett.
    We note that there was government action after Petty’s second proffer
    interview: Petty was issued a wiretapped cellphone and was tasked with introducing
    Clarett to an undercover agent. However, the two wiretapped cellphone conversations
    constitute the entirety of his conduct on record from this point onward. Nothing
    during these two conversations indicates that Petty did anything more than provide
    Clarett with the opportunity to break the law. Whether or not Petty induced Clarett
    to engage in the murder-for-hire plot before this point is simply irrelevant because
    Petty was then acting on his own and not on behalf of the government. Because
    Clarett was not induced by a government agent, we need not consider whether he was
    predisposed to commit the crime of which he was convicted.
    III.   Conclusion
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    ______________________________
    -5-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-3057

Citation Numbers: 907 F.3d 1100

Filed Date: 11/6/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023