unavailable witness’s out-of-court statement that she, the defendant and the government informant had all used cocaine together “so far tended to subject” her to criminal liability that it should have been admitted as a statement against interest
How later courts described this case
- unavailable witness’s out-of-court statement that she, the defendant and the government informant had all used cocaine together “so far tended to subject” her to criminal liability that it should have been admitted as a statement against interest
- defendant’s testimony that government informant used cocaine provided sufficient corroboration of declarant’s out-of-court statement, sought to be introduced by defendant, that infor mant used eocaine
- trial court held evidentiary hearing on issue of outrageous government conduct
- the use of an “attractive female” to strike up a personal relationship with defendant and then induce him to sell her cocaine did not violate due process despite his eleven separate refusals to do so
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOONAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Since Samson and Delilah, sexual seduction has been a means of taking advantage of an enemy. It always involves conduct that exploits and degrades the person being used as the seducer, violates ordinary standards of sexual conduct, and necessarily implies treachery poisoning a peculiarly personal relationship. If the government were in the business of employing such means against Americans as a matter of course, I would not hesitate to condemn the government’s conduct as outrageous. Justice Brandéis, dissenting, has articulated the standard: the government is the universal teacher; it should not be the teacher of dirty tricks. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 , 48 S.Ct. 564, 575 , 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928). The government may not be permitted by its courts to obtain criminal convictions by gross means. The war against drugs is not to be won by prostitution. In this case there is just a shadow of doubt as to what the government did, and I defer to the trial court's view that the defendant took the initiative. I would not give an imprimatur to the government’s conduct, and I believe it a very close question as to whether the prosecution should have been dismissed because of the government’s use of Belinda Antal. I concur in the opinion in its reversal of the judgment because of the denial of the North instruction.