# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Richmann v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385002_0910%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1989 - **Citation:** 490 U.S. 1089 ## Text . Supreme Court, U.S. A FIL ¢D ‘] FEB 10 1989 Iu the ae. Suprene Court of the United States October Term, 1988 No. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DANIEL PAUL RICHMANN PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT STEVEN ANTOLAK Of Counsel to: COLICH & CAHILI :20 Lumber Exchange 10 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55-402 (612) 333-7007 Attorney for Petitioner QUESTIONS PRESENTED When the Government uses a citizen volunteer as an undercover drug agent, then decides not to use that citizen, but fails to inform the citizen of the termination of his agency, and finally prosecutes him for drug conspiracy violations for acts committed during his putative agency, has the Government violated the citizen’s Due Process rights? I. Did the District Court err when it required Petitioner to prove that a juror’ extrajudicial contact was prejudicial without permitting an interview of the tainted juror? TABLE OF CONTENTS Seem Meee WORREIN A D),.................000ceseeeee i eee AE PAR ATER IESO............20000.ccc000. Hl EE MEET ac. c5c.ccrsescccenenccessssseseseeeeess | UN sa. scandcssasscccassecsesssoscscesseasesess 2 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.................. 2 Daeememree Wer inte CASE.......................... 3 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION..8 I. Due Process Violations.............. 8 I]. Juror Misconduct..................... 14 EI loci coscccsscccssccnssccssscessccscccesscee: 19 APPENDIX Ul TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976)...9 Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S.140 (1892).....14 Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952)......... 8 Tanner v. United States, US. , 107 ee PR es csccntavasovnces 18 United States v. Emmert, 829 F.2d 805 ee eo cnéainnkeneceasenaees 9 United States v. Forrest, 620 F.2d 446 es i cecekbchosences 16 United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973).....9 United States v. York, 830 F.2d 885 SR it BUNT Viccvicccvacascsvcnnccccdendsdésvecedacns 9 lil IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1988 United States of America, Respondent, VS. Daniel Paul Richmann, Petitioner. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. Daniel Paul Richmann petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in this case. OPINIONS BELOW Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in the District of Minnesota. Appeal was taken to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the conviction. The opinion of the Court of Appeals (Appendix, p.1) is reported at 860 F.2d 837 (8th Cir. 1988). The District Court’s rulings are not reported. JURISDICTION The judgment of the Court of Appeals (Appendix, p.14) was entered on October 26, 1988. Petitioner’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied on December 13, 1988 (Appendix, p.15). The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS United States Constitution, Amendment V: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or ty public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any Criminal case to be a witness against himseif, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” STATEMENT OF THE CASE On December 19, 1986, Dan Richmann was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Ackerson Construction Company. Until that date, he believed that he was also an undercover drug informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Task Force in Minneapolis. When a search warrant was executed on December 19, 1986, at his office, however, he was told that the DEA Task Force had decided long before not to use him. That was the first time Dan Richmann learned of any such decision. ———————————————————— Soon after that search, Dan Richmann was indicted for Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substances and was tried under the District Court’s jurisdiction conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Dan Richmann first started using cocaine in 1978. On May 1, 1980, he was admitted to St. Mary’s Rehabilitation Center for inpatient treatment of his addiction. He remained free of cocaine until November of 1984 when he began using the drug again. Mr. Richmann’s addiction deepened into heavier use until he was again admitted to inpatient treatment in December 1985. After finishing inpatient treatment, Mr. Richmann approached the DEA and offered information on some of the highest placed cocaine dealers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, including Vasilious Loukas (Bill Loukas), a man who later would be a co-defendant of Mr. Richmann. Mr. Richmann had neither been arrested nor charged with any crime when he approached the DEA. 4 Mr. Richmann met with Sergeant Harry Baltzer of the DEA Task Force and discussed setting up drug dealer Bob Tory and accumulating evidence against drug dealer Bill Loukas. After these discussions, Mr. Richmann’s reliability as an informant/undercover agent was established by setting up a drug purchase in March 1986. Mr. Richmann introduced an undercover DEA agent to drug dealer Bob Tory and a one ounce cocaine purchase was concluded. A short time after this successful drug buy, the DEA decided not to use Mr. Richmann as an informant. The DEA claimed that a confidential informant had said that Mr. Richmann had revealed the description and identity of the undercover agent he had worked with in the Tory purchase. The DEA, however, did not tell Mr. Richmann that he would not be used. It was only on December 19, 1986, when a search warrant was executed at his place of business that Mr. Richmann learned of the DEA’s decision. > Between March, 1986, when he made the controlled buy, and December 19, 1986, when the search warrant was executed, Mr. Richmann collected evidence against Bill Loukas and kept it in his office. Mr. Richmann had exchanged small bills for money orders for Loukas and kept the receipts in his office. He had a car phone installed in Loukas’ car and kept the records in his office. The monthly bills for that phone were also sent to office. This evidence was seized in the December 19th search, with the aid and cooperation of Mr. Richmann, and was used against him to prove an alleged conspiracy with Mr. Loukas. In June of 1987, Mr. Richmann was convicted by a jury of conspiring to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. After his conviction, Mr. Richmann discovered that one of his jurors had discussed the case with a third party who was either in the jury pool awaiting selection or was a juror sitting on a different case. As part of the conversation, the juror from this case stated 6 that Mr. Richmann was being taken advantage of and taken down the Primrose Lane. Mr. Richmann’s counsel requested the opportunity to investigate the matter and to have that juror testify regarding the entire conversation to see if the conversation had any prejudicial effect on the jury. The trial court denied the motion, primarily because Mr. Richmann had failed to show any prejudice from the juror’s statement. Appeal was taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of conviction, and later denied a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION I. DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS DECIDED AN IMPORTANT QUESTION OF FEDERAL LAW WHICH HAS NOT BEEN, BUT SHOULD BE, SETTLED BY THIS COURT. More than 30 years ago, this Court held that Due Process prohibits convictions based on Outrageous police conduct: “Convictions cannot be brought about by methods that offend a sense of justice.” Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 173 (1952) (police cannot pump a suspect’s stomach after the suspect has swallowed drug capsules). When police conduct “shocks the conscience,” Id. at 172, a defendant’s Due Process rights are violated, and dismissal is appropriate. Since Rochin, the increasing sophistication of the illicit drug trade has forced the courts to allow a wide range of police tactics. This Court has held that law enforcement personnel may 8 infiltrate drug rings and even participate to a limited extent in unlawful practices. United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 432 (1973). Federal agents may supply the main ingredient to manufacture a drug, or even the illicit drug itself to trap suspects. See Russell; Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976). Lower courts have approved the use of large sums of money and threats by drug agents to accomplish their objectives. See, e.g., United States v. Emmert, 829 F.2d 805 (9th Cir. 1987). The use of informants in drug enforcement is, of course, permissible. See United States v. York, 830 F.2d 885 (8th Cir. 1987). Because the infiltration of drug rings is critical to effective law enforcement, the use of informants is not only permissible, it is indispensable. The indispensable informant, however, is often in a vulnerable and dangerous position. Accordingly, the informant shouid have the right to know his exact status vis a vis the government. To use a person as an 9 informant, exposing that person to the dangers of detection, without advising that person when they are no longer being used by the government, is inexcusable. To then prosecute the person for acts committed during his putative agency “shocks the conscience” and should not be allowed. These are the factual circumstances the Petitioner presents to this Court. In December 1985, petitioner approached the DEA and volunteered information on drug dealers. He even volunteered to act as an undercover agent/informant to a limited extent. Petitioner did this on his own accord, not to earn lenient treatment on a pending charge as most informants, but because he had kicked a bad cocaine habit and wanted to clean up the streets. The DEA tested Petitioner’s reliability with a controlled drug buy in March 1986 and agreed to use him. Soon after, the DEA Task Force decided not to use Petitioner as an informant after a confidential informant said that Petitioner had 10 revealed sensitive information to others. The critical fact in this case is that no one from the government informed Petitioner that he would not be used as an informant. Ignorant of the Government’s decision, Petitioner continued to associate with drug dealer Bill Loukas, despite his fear of Loukas. In his private office, Petitioner collected evidence against Loukas, creating a “paper trail” documenting money laundering and other drug activities. When federal agents searched his office in December 1986, Petitioner was cooperative because he believed he was working for the very people who were confronting him. Throughout the search, Petitioner asked if the agents had talked with Harry Baltzer, his contact on the DEA Task Force. Evidence from that search was used to convict Petitioner. This case raises the important question of whether Due Process requires the Government to advise an informant that they are no longer being 11 used, that they are “on their own.” This Court has not addressed this issue yet. Due Process cases have always discussed what the police may do when dealing with suspects. The question of what conduct is permissible vis a vis an informant has not been addressed. Because an informant is always in a vulnerable position with respect to both the Government and the drug kingpins they are setting up, the informant can be abused easily. It offends society’s “sense of justice” for the Government to be as dishonest with its informants as it is with the suspects. Regardless of an informant’s criminal intent, Due Process should require, at a minimum, that the Government advise the undercover informant that the Government has withdrawn its protective umbrella. The reasons for the Government's decision need not be given, but a simple “termination notice” should be sent to the informant. 12 —— he Petitioner's Due Process issue was raised and briefed in the Eighth Circuit in the context of a “sufficiency of the evidence” argument. The thrust of the argument, however, was that the conduct of the police was so outrageous that his conviction was unjust. See Petitioner’s Brief to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, p. 24 (’Such conduct should not be tolerated from the government as a matter of policy, which is why the defense of entrapment exist: in the first place.”); Petitioners Memorandum in Support of Petition for Reconsideration by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeais, p. | (“This is an important case because it calls into question the effect that government agents’ conduct can have on the issue of intent.”); Id. at 12 (“Sgt. Baltzer’s conduct in this relationship was outrageous and unprofessional.”); Id. at 14 (“Appellant asks this Court to consider carefully the conduct of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s agents in this case in determining whether to review its original decision.”) Petitioner respectfully asks this Court to remedy these serious Due Process violations and crant review. IT. JUROR MISCONDUCT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS SANCTIONED A RADICAL DEPARTURE FROM PRECEDENT AND THE USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS BY THE DISTRICT COURT AS TO CALL FOR AN EXERCISE OF THIS COURT'S SUPERVISORY POWERS. In 1892, this Court held that private communications between jurors and third persons are absolutely forbidden. Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 150 (1892). After Mattox, this Court pronounced the following black-letter law: 14 “In a criminal case, any private communication, contact or tampering, directly or indirectly with a juror during trial about the matter pending before the jury is, for obvious’ reasons, deemed presumptively prejudicial....The presumption is not conclusive, but the burden rests heavily upon the government to establish, after notice to and hearing of the defendant, that such contact with the juror was harmless to the defendant.” Remmer _v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229 (1954). (emphasis added). It appears then, in a claim of third party communication with a juror, a defendant would satisfy the Remmer standard by showing: 1) a private communication with a juror; 2) the communication was during trial; and 3) the communication was about the matter before the jury. Petitioner met the Remmer standard. A character witness for the Petitioner was approached by a third party who had had contact with a juror in Petitioner’s trial. The third party 15 eee said that he had had a conversation with that juror during the trial. In that conversation, the juror said that the Petitioner was being led down the “Primrose Lane” by the Government, an obvious reference to the merits of the case. The rest of the conversation is unknown because the third party could not be identified and the talkative juror was not brought in to testify. In evaluating this extraneous contact, the Eighth Circuit quoted the Remmer standard, but then added that Petitioner “has not alleged that the juror was improperly influenced or that information prejudicial to Richmann was communicated to the juror.” Remmer in no way requires a showing of communication of prejudicial information or improper influence. See United States v. Forrest, 620 F.2d 446, 457 (Sth Cir. 1980) (“whether the comments are favorable or unfavorable to the defendant is immaterial”). The only requirement is that the defendant show: 1) communication, 2) during 16 trial, 3) about the trial. Petitioner made that showing. Requiring a greater showing disregards the presumption of prejudice set forth in Remmer. The lower court’s error was compounded by refusing to allow the defense to call the offending juror to investigate the possibility of prejudice. Petitioner is well aware of the importance of insulating the jury’s deliberative process. Generally, that interest precludes the admission of juror testimony to impeach a jury verdict. Fed. R. Evid. 606(b). The exception to that rule, however, is when “extrinsic influence” is alleged, as is here. This Court recently noted that evidentiary hearings in such cases are appropriate: “The Courts holdings requiring an evidentiary hearing where extrinsic influence or relationships have tainted the deliberations do not detract from, but rather harmonize with, the weighty Government 17 interest in insulating the jury’s deliberative process.” Tanner v. United States, 8. Cera 8 S.Ct. 2739, 2747 (1987). Thus, the lower Courts’ failure to allow (let alone require) an evidentiary hearing should move this Court to exercise its Supervisory powers. In essence, the trial court and the Eighth Circuit have departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings in two ways. First, the lower courts placed the burden of proving prejudice on the defendant instead of placing the. burden of disproving prejudice on the Government as required by Remmer. Second, the lower courts compounded the error by not allowing the Petitioner to call in the offending juror to investigate the scope of the entire extraneous communication to show prejudice. This Court should grant review in the exercise of its supervisory powers to correct those errors. 18 CONCLUSION Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court grant his Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Respectfully submitted, Steven E. Antolak Of Counsel to: COLICH & CAHILL 420 Lumber Exchange 10 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 333-7007 Dated: February 9, 1989 APPENDIX United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 87-5369 United States of America, * — Appellee, * x Vv. * Appeal from the United * States District Court for Daniel Paul Richmann, * the District Court of * Minnesota. Appellant. ° Submitted: June 16, 1988 Filed: October 26, 1988 Before LAY, Chief Judge, Brown, * Senior Circuit Judge, and BEAM, Circuit Judge. BEAM, Circuit Judge. Daniel Paul Richmann appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. We affirm. “The HONORABLE JOHN R. BROWN, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. PAGE __"_ OF APPENDIX I. Background In December of 1985, Richmann, who has a history of cocaine abuse, contacted a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent. He told the agent that he would be willing to provide the DEA with the names of many of the large cocaine dealers in the Minnesota Twin Cities area. In connection with this call, Richmann was cordacted in February of 1986 by another agent, Sergeant Harry Baltzer of the DEA Task Force. Richmann and Baltzer met and it was agreed that Richmann would provide Baltzer with information about Vasilios (William) Loukas, a large drug dealer in the area and one of Richmann’s codetendants. Initially, in order to test Richmann’s reliability. Baltzer asked Richmann to arrange the introduction of a drug dealer to an undercover agent of the DEA. The introduction was made and the agent purchased a small amount of cocaine from the dealer. In early March of 1986. Baltzer and the DEA decided not to use Richmann as an informant in the PAGE __-_ OF APPENDIX future. This decision was made after Baltzer learned from another informant that Richmann had discussed his involvement with the DEA with persons involved in the drug business. However, Richmann was not told that he was no longer working with the DEA. It was felt that to do so would compromise the informant who had told Baltzer of Richmann’s activities. From March of 1986 until his arrest in December of 1986, Richmann continued to associate and deal with Loukas in the distribution of cocaine. On December 18, 1986, a DEA agent, an agent of the Internal Revenue Service and an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation executed a search warrant at Richmann’s office. Richmann was present during the search. As it progressed Richmann offered a substantial amount of information about his dealings with Loukas and indicated where in the office physical evidence of these activities was located. During the course of the search, Richmann was advised of his Miranda PAGE _>___ OF APPENDIX rights after which he continued to provide the officers with information. Richmann was later indicted along with three drug dealers. Following a jury trial, Richmann was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 and sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. IT. Discussion A. Third Party Contact by a Juror Following his conviction, Richmann filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 based on grounds of juror misconduct. Richmann claimed that one of his character witnesses was approached, aftcr he testified, by a man in the parking garage adjacent to the courthouse. This individual allegedly told the witness that he had spoken to one of the jurcrs and the juror told him that he thought Richmann was being taken advantage of and “taken down PAGE _*__ OF APPENDIX the primrose lane” by the government. Following a hearing at which the witness related this incident, the court denied Richmann’s motion for a new trial and his request to question the individual juror about the incident. “{A]ny communication with a juror during trial about a matter pending before the jury is deemed presumptively prejudicial to a defendant’s right to a fair trial. (Citations omitted.) This presumption of prejudice is not conclusive, but ‘the burden rests heavily upon the Government to establish * * * that such contact with the juror was harmless to the defendant.” United States v. Delaney, 732 F.2d 639, 642 (8th Cir. 1984) (quoting Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229 (1954)). However, Richmann has not alleged that the juror was improperly influenced or that information prejudicial to Richmann was communicated to the juror. The government asserts, therefore, that since the juror was not exposed to any improper influence or prejudicial information, the contact was harmless. PAGE _>___ OF APPENDIX Unless there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial court, we will not set aside the court’s decision to deny the motion. United States v. Conzemius, 611 F.2d 695, 696 (8th Cir. 1979). We find that the misconduct complained of, if any, was harmless to Richmann. No information appears to have been conveyed to any member of the jury. Rather, if Richmann’s witness is believed, it appears that this juror was expressing an idea which was favorable to Richmann. There was no evidence that this particular juror, or any other member of the panel, had been exposed to prejudicial information or evidence other than that which was introduced at the trial. In fact, as indicated, the comment the juror purportedly made to Richmann’s witness was beneficial to Richmann and detrimental to the goverment. Therefore. a new tral was not warranted. As regards Richmann’s request to question the jun is generally considered preferable to insulate jury deliberations. “The policy does not. however. foreclose testimony by jurors as to prejudical extraneous information PAGE _S__ OF APPENDIX or influences injected into or brought to bear upon the deliberative process.” Scogin v. Century Fitness, Inc., 780 F.2d 1316, 1319 n.S (8th Cir. 1985). There being no showing, however, that this was the situation, the district court was correct in not making further inquiry into the jury deliberations. B. Inadmissible Evidence Richmann’s second assignment of error involves the testimony of Sergeant Baltzer concerning the reason he discontinued his use of Richmann as a confidential informant. Baltzer testified at trial that he had received information from an informant that Richmann had stated at a party that he had compromised a DEA agent. Baltzer further testified that Richmann had recited that he had provided specific information to other drug traffickers about the DEA agent, including a description of the agent and the agent's undercover name. PAGE ____ OF APPENDIX Richmann objected to the testimony claiming it was hearsay. In addition, he argued that because his DEA involvement was a crucial part of his defense, the testimony was unfairly prejudicial and the prejudice outweighed the probative value of the testimony. Richmann also claimed that the admission of the statements of the unidentified informant violated his sixth amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. The government argued that the Baltzer testimony was admissible because it was offered only to show the state of mind of Baltzer at the time he made the decision not to use Richmann as an informant, and not for its truth. The district court ruled that the testimony should be admitted on that basis and instructed the jury that they were not to consider the testimony for the truth of the Statements made by Richmann, but rather to consider it as relating to why Baltzer acted as he did. Agent Baltzer’s activities within the context of the entire drug investigation were proper matters for the jury to evaluate. “(E]videntiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion only * * * ” and Richmann has the burden of PAGE _2___ OF APPENDIX showing that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of Baltzer. United States v. Janis, 831 F.2d 773, 779 (8th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 108 S. Ct. 1046 (1988). Since Baltzer’s testimony as to the informant’s statement was of consequence in the determination of issues properly before the jury and the informant’s statement was not hearsay as defined by the rules of evidence, the evidence was admissible. We also find, as did the district court, that the evidence was not unfairly prejudicial nor did it violate Richmann’s sixth amendment rights. .. Richmann’s Confession During the search of his office, Richmann spontaneously provided extensive information about his activities with Loukas. About two hours into the search, the agents advised Richmann of his Miranda rights after which he repeated much of the information he had already given. PAGE __°_ OF APPENDIX Richmann, in a pretrial motion, requested that these statements be suppressed. The trial court denied the motion. Richmann claims that the statements he made during the search were taken in violation of his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, in spite of the fact that he repeated the statements after receiving Miranda warnings. The Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) held that law enforcement officers are required to advise a suspect of his fifth and sixth amendment rights prior to a custodial interrogation. The court defined custodial interrogation as “questioning initiated by law enforcement otticers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Id. at 444. We find that Richmann was not in custody during the search of his office. He was never denied permission to leave the office, nor did he ask to do so. He was denied permission to contact his wife. However, that does not constitute a significant deprivation of his treedom. Evenif Richmann could be considered to have PAGE —_<__ OF APPENDIX been in custody during the search, his confession is still admissible because he voluntarily repeated earlier spontaeous but unwarned statements after the administration of the Miranda warnings. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 314 (1985). D. Sufficiency of the Evidence In order to convict Richmann of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, the goverment had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an agreement among the coconspirators, one of whom being Richmann, to commit an offense against the United States. In addition, the government must prove that there was an overt act by one of the coconspirators in furtherance of the agreement. Richmann’s defense at trial was that he did not engage in any overt acts in furtherance of the agreement with the intent to commit a crime. He claims that he could not have formed the requisite intent because he believed he was working with the DEA. His intent was to assist the DEA, not, he claims, PAGE __*__ OF APPENDIX io commit a crime. In the alternative, he asserts that he was a victim of entrapment. In reviewing a claim regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the 4 Government, to support it.” Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). We recognize that the government had the burden of proving all elements of the crime and of proving that Richmann had a predisposition to commit the crime if entrapment is alleged. United States v. Irving, 827 F.2d 390, 392 (8th Cir. 1987). Having reviewed the evidence presented at trial, we find that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Richmann. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. PAGE _'*_ OF APPENDIX BRKT . en a | A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. PAGE __>__ OF APPENDIX United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT JUDGMENT No. 87-5369MN United States of America, Appellee, Vv. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District Court of Minnesota. Daniel Paul Richmann, * &#e2etes2?etest & Appellant. This appeal from the United States District Court was submitted on the record of the district court, briefs of the parties and was argued by counsel. After consideration, it is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the district court in this cause be affirmed in accordance with the opinion of this Court. October 26, 1988 A True Copy. ATTEST: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. MANDATE ISSUED: 12/2988 PAGE _2___ OF APPENDIX | United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 87-5369MN United States of America, * a. Appellee, * * Vv. * Appeal from the United * States District Court for Daniel Paul Richmann, * the District Court of * Minnesota. Appellant. ° Appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc has been considered by the Court and is denied. Petition for rehearing by the panel is also denied. December 13, 1988 Order entered at the Direction of the Court: Clerk, U. S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. PAGE 15 OF APPENDIX --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385002_0910%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.