U.S. v. Jenrette

• Citation: 240 U.S. App. D.C. 193,744 F.2d 817
• Decision Date: 18 September 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-2281,83-2281
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. John W. JENRETTE, Appellant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

Page 817

744 F.2d 817

240 U.S.App.D.C. 193

UNITED STATES of America v. John W. JENRETTE, Appellant.

No. 83-2281.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 23, 1984.

Decided Sept. 18, 1984.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. Criminal Action No. 80-00289-01).

Kenneth M. Robinson and W. Gary Kohlman, Washington, D.C., with whom Dennis M. Hart and Stanley Brand, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellant.

Michael W. Farrell, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Joseph E. diGenova, U.S. Atty., and Reid H. Weingarten, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before WRIGHT, TAMM and STARR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge TAMM.

TAMM, Circuit Judge:

Former Congressman John Jenrette appeals his conviction on bribery charges stemming from the undercover operation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) known as "Abscam." Jenrette contends that 1) the trial court erred in declining to instruct the jury on the defense of duress; 2) the evidence adduced at trial established entrapment as a matter of law; 3) the FBI's conduct during the investigation violated principles of due process; and 4) the government failed to disclose certain evidence required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). For the reasons expressed below, we affirm the conviction.

I. BACKGROUND

This court is by now quite familiar with the FBI's undercover operation known as Abscam. See United States v. Weisz, 718 F.2d 413, 416-17 (D.C.Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, ----, 104 S.Ct. 1285, 1305, 79 L.Ed.2d 688, 704 (1984); United States v. Kelly, 707 F.2d 1460, 1461-63 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 264, 78 L.Ed.2d 247 (1983). The Abscam operation involved a fictitious, FBI-created entity, Abdul Enterprises, which was purportedly operated by wealthy Arabs interested in United States investments. During the period relevant to this case, FBI agent Anthony Amoroso assumed the role of president of the organization, and Melvin Weinberg posed as its financial advisor. ¹ Through various "middlemen," Weinberg and Amoroso offered bribes to members of Congress. In return, the Abscam operatives asked the congressmen to introduce private legislation that would permit their Arab clients to immigrate to the United States.

Jenrette became involved in the Abscam operation through his friend and co-defendant John Stowe. ² In November 1979, Weinberg told Stowe that his Arab clients were interested in discussing with Jenrette the possibility of a private immigration bill. Weinberg asked Stowe to determine whether Jenrette would introduce such a bill for $100,000. Trial Transcript (Tr.) (Amoroso), Joint Appendix (J.A.) volume II (II) at 227-28. On December 3, 1979, Stowe met with Weinberg and Amoroso to arrange a meeting with Jenrette. ³

The events that resulted in Jenrette's indictment for bribery began on December 4-6, 1979. On December 4, Jenrette and Stowe met with Weinberg and Amoroso at a townhouse on W Street in Washington, D.C. During the meeting, Amoroso explained that his clients needed help immigrating to the United States. Transcript of Taped Meeting of Dec. 4, 1979. J.A. volume III (III) at 737-43. Jenrette stated that he would introduce or arrange to have introduced a private immigration bill. Id. at 744. Amoroso then told Jenrette: "We're talking about fifty thousand dollars now and fifty thousand dollars when this thing is introduced." Id. at 747. After some discussion about simultaneously introducing a bill in the Senate, Jenrette indicated that he would like to review the immigration laws before accepting the money. Id. at 759. Jenrette explained that he didn't want to take the money without "feeling comfortable about being able to do it." Id. at 760. Although Amoroso again offered Jenrette the money during the December 4 meeting, Jenrette postponed his response until the following day when he would know whether he could help Amoroso's clients. Id. at 766-70. Jenrette then assured Amoroso: "[D]on't get me wrong ... I got larceny in my blood. I'd take it in a ... minute." Id. at 772.

Jenrette phoned Amoroso the following day and stated that he would go forward with the transaction but probably could not arrange a meeting that day. Transcript of Telephone Call of Dec. 5, 1979. J.A. III at 788-89. On December 6, Jenrette informed Amoroso by telephone that he wanted Stowe to pick up the money. Jenrette explained that if Stowe received the money, he (Jenrette) would be "a little bit ... away from a section in the code about ... public officials." Transcript of Telephone Call of Dec. 6, 1979, J.A. III at 799. Amoroso agreed to give the money to Stowe. Id. at 800. After Stowe picked up the money, Jenrette confirmed with Amoroso receipt of the $50,000. Transcript of Telephone Call of Dec. 6, 1979, J.A. III at 806-07.

On January 7, 1980, Jenrette and Stowe again met with Amoroso and Weinberg. At this meeting, Jenrette brought up the immigration problem and indicated that he might be able to get Senator Strom Thurmond interested in the deal. Transcript of Meeting of Jan. 7, 1980, J.A. III at 852-53. Jenrette and Stowe continued to have contact with the Abscam agents regarding the proposed bribery of Senator Thurmond until their arrest on February 2, 1980. ⁴

On June 13, 1980, Jenrette and Stowe were indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit bribery and two counts of bribery. After a full trial, a jury found Jenrette and Stowe guilty on all counts. Both Stowe and Jenrette filed motions seeking a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the government's investigation was so outrageous as to offend due process, and that the evidence established entrapment as a matter of law. Alternatively, Jenrette and Stowe sought a new trial on the ground that the government failed to comply with the disclosure requirement of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). After a lengthy post-trial hearing, United States District Judge John Garrett Penn denied the motions. United States v. Jenrette, Cr. No. 80-289 (D.D.C. Aug. 4, 1983), J.A. volume I(I) at 83-84. Subsequently, Jenrette was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and fined $30,000.

Jenrette appeals his conviction and the denial of his motion for acquittal or retrial. In addition to the three claims raised in his motion before the district court, Jenrette asserts that the district judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of duress. For the reasons set forth below, we find Jenrette's contentions meritless. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and the district court's judgment.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Duress

The defense of duress excuses criminal conduct only where the defendant committed the illegal action "under an unlawful threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury ...." United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 409, 100 S.Ct. 624, 634, 62 L.Ed.2d 575 (1980). If the defendant had any reasonable, legal alternative to committing the crime, the defense of duress will not obtain. Id. at 410, 100 S.Ct. at 634. In most cases, a defendant need not produce strong evidence to obtain a jury instruction on duress. Where, however, the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding of duress, the district court's refusal to instruct the jury on duress is not erroneous. United States v. Shapiro, 669 F.2d 593, 596-97 (9th Cir.1982). See United States v. Peltier, 693 F.2d 96, 98 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam). See also United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. at 412, 100 S.Ct. at 635.

Jenrette contends that he accepted the bribe only because he feared death or injury at the hands of Weinberg and Amoroso. According to Jenrette, Weinberg and Amoroso deliberately portrayed themselves as mobsters. Jenrette maintains that because he suffers from paranoia induced by alcoholism, this "gangster image" induced a reasonable fear of imminent danger. Jenrette testified that his fears were substantiated by a threat from Weinberg. ⁵

We conclude that the evidence offered by Jenrette is insufficient as a matter of law to justify a finding of duress. Assuming that Jenrette reasonably believed Weinberg and Amoroso were gangsters and that this belief produced a reasonable fear, we still find no evidence that Jenrette was threatened with imminent bodily harm on December 6 when he accepted the bribe. Similarly, Jenrette cites no evidence in the record that a threat of imminent harm at the January 7 meeting caused him to suggest involving Senator Thurmond in the immigration deal. ⁶ Furthermore, Jenrette does not argue that he had no reasonable, legal alternative to accepting the bribe money. As noted, the bribe was first offered at the December 4, 1979 meeting. Although Jenrette allegedly feared for his life, he did not accept the money on December 4. Instead, he left the townhouse and made arrangements for an intermediary to collect the money two days later. Even if Jenrette reasonably believed he was in imminent danger while at the townhouse, he has offered no explanation for his failure to take alternative action, such as notifying law enforcement officials, during the next two days.

Jenrette's actions belie his assertion that he acted under threat of imminent harm and that he had no alternative but to accept the bribe. Accordingly, we find, as a matter of law, that the cited evidence cannot support acquittal on the basis of duress. The district court, therefore, did not err in declining to instruct the jury on the defense of duress. See United States v. Shapiro, 669 F.2d at 596-97.

B. Entrapment

Entrapment occurs when a defendant commits a crime not due to any predisposition, but solely as a result of government inducement. See United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 428-29, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 1641, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973). A defendant raises the issue of...