U.S. v. Beverly, 83-1306
| Decision Date | 16 December 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1306,No. 83-1324,83-1324,Nos. 83-1306,83-1306,s. 83-1306 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Lawrence D. BEVERLY, Larry Beverly, Appellant inUNITED STATES of America v. Dorrie Eugene ADAMS, Appellant in |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Jeffrey L. Staniels (argued), Asst. Defender, Defender Ass'n of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant in No. 83-1306.
Robert E. Madden (argued), Higgins & Madden, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant in No. 83-1324.
Edward S.G. Dennis, Jr., U.S. Atty., Walter S. Batty, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Dennis O. Wilson (argued), Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before ADAMS, BECKER, and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges.
On February 28, 1983 Dorrie Adams and Lawrence Beverly were convicted by a jury on a two count indictment charging them with conspiring to destroy and attempting to destroy a government building by fire. On appeal, they raise a number of points, including a serious question about the government's role in these crimes. Although we are troubled by the tactics employed by the government's agents, we affirm the convictions.
In October 1982, a paid informant introduced Adams and Robert Brown to Darrell O'Connor, a Special Agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The informant had previously explained that O'Connor could help Adams make a considerable sum of money. O'Connor told Adams and Brown that he was looking for someone to burn a building owned by a friend. He offered $3,000.00 for the job, provided that Adams could prove that he was an experienced arsonist. At this and subsequent meetings, Adams gave repeated assurances that he had burned down several buildings, although at trial he denied that these representations were true and claimed that he was simply trying to impress his potential employer. Upon the request of O'Connor and Detective Wayne McGlotten of the Philadelphia Police Department, who posed as the owner of the building to be burned, Adams subsequently pointed to an abandoned building as an example of his previous work. McGlotten and O'Connor testified that the building did not appear to have been burned and that the Fire Marshal had no record of a fire on the property.
After Brown withdrew from the arson scheme, O'Connor asked Adams whether he had found another partner. Adams replied that he had recruited Beverly. Beverly told O'Connor that he had never committed arson but was willing to go along. Both Adams and Beverly appeared to be in financially distressed circumstances.
Following the purchase of a gasoline can, paint supplies and hats (so that the defendants could disguise themselves as painters), O'Connor brought Adams and Beverly in a government car to a service station, bought gasoline, ascertained that Adams had matches, drove the defendants to a building owned by the government, and looked on while they were arrested. A jury found Beverly and Adams guilty of conspiring and attempting to destroy a government building by fire. Timely appeals were then filed.
Appellants advance several points before this Court, two of which can be easily decided. First, Beverly asserts that the trial court erred in holding that Adams was not a government agent who induced Beverly to join a criminal enterprise. In so ruling, however, the trial court was simply following the law of this and several other Circuits that an entrapment defense cannot be predicated on the actions of a party who has not agreed explicitly or implicitly to help the government make its case against the person who complains of entrapment. See, e.g., United States v. Dove, 629 F.2d 325, 329 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Twigg, 588 F.2d 373, 381 (3d Cir.1978). Second, Adams asserts that the trial court erred in refusing the request to charge the jury to consider Adams' background and the nature of the inducement. The trial court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Porter
...the marijuana without the active aid and supervision of the government. Additionally, the Third Circuit, in United States v. Beverly, 723 F.2d 11, 12 (3rd Cir.1983), has stated that the majority in Twigg relied on United States v. West, 511 F.2d 1083 (3rd Cir.1975), which according to their......
-
U.S. v. Bruun
...and expertise for an illegal drug manufacturing operation and was sole customer of defendants), limited by, United States v. Beverly, 723 F.2d 11 (3d Cir.1983) (per curiam ). III. No. 85-1311 Although defendant Bruun raises a number of challenges which are similar to those raised by defenda......
-
U.S. v. Washington
...government, [does] not constitute governmental solicitation or inducement for purposes of the entrapment defense"); United States v. Beverly, 723 F.2d 11, 12 (3d Cir.1983) ("[A]n entrapment defense cannot be predicated on the actions of a party who has not agreed explicitly or implicitly to......
-
U.S. v. Engler
...Engler has not introduced evidence of such government conduct as would "shock[ ] the conscience of the Court," United States v. Beverly, 723 F.2d 11, 13 (3d Cir.1983)(per curiam), or otherwise compel it to overcome its "extreme caution in finding due process violations in undercover setting......
-
Race, Entrapment, and Manufacturing 'Homegrown Terrorism
...test. See id. at 1399 (first citing United States v. McLernon, 746 F.2d 1098, 1109 (6th Cir. 1984); then citing United States v. Beverly, 723 F.2d 11, 12 (3d Cir. 1983) (per curiam); and then citing United States v. Dove, 629 F.2d 325, 329 (4th Cir. 1980)). In applying the different tests,......
-
Public corruption.
...who exhibited racial animus as an informant in sting operation targeted at African-American federal judge); United States v. Beverly, 723 F.2d 11, 12-13 (3d Cir. 1983) (rejecting defendants' assertion that allegedly outrageous government conduct deprived them of their due process rights); U......
-
Public corruption.
...character who exhibited racial animus in sting operation targeted at African-American federal judge); United States v. Beverly, 723 F.2d 11, 12-13 (3d Cir. 1983) (rejecting defendants' assertion that allegedly outrageous government conduct deprived them of their due process rights); United ......
-
Public corruption.
...who exhibited racial animus as an informant in sting operation targeted at African-American federal judge); United States v. Beverly, 723 F.2d 11, 12-13 (3d Cir. 1983) (rejecting defendants' assertion that allegedly outrageous government conduct deprived them of their due process rights); U......