United States v. Willie Joe Williams, 488 F.2d 788, 10th Cir. (1973)

488 F.
2d 788
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
Willie Joe WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 73-1450.
United States Court of Appeals,

Tenth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 16, 1973.
Decided Dec. 13, 1973.
James M. Dunn, Asst. U. S. Atty., Salt Lake City, Utah (C. Nelson Day,
U. S. Atty., Salt Lake City, Utah, with him on the brief), for plaintiffappellee.
John W. Horsley, Moyle & Draper, Salt Lake City, Utah, for defendantappellant.
Before PICKETT, SETH and DOYLE, Circuit Judges.
PICKETT, Circuit Judge.
Williams was convicted on two counts of an Information charging him with

possession and sale of heroin, a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
Sec. 841(a)(1) (1970). He was sentenced to serve two concurrent six-year
terms. On appeal he contends that the record establishes the defense of
entrapment as a matter of law and that the trial court should have dismissed the
Information because of the failure of the government to produce a paid
informer as a witness during the trial.
Early in September 1972 Jerry Dismuke, a drug addict, came to the Salt Lake
City office of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, together
with representatives of the Salt Lake City Police Department. Dismuke
indicated that he knew people in the area who were trafficking in narcotics and
that he was willing to assist the Bureau in its narcotics investigations. He was
employed as an informant and assigned to work with Special Agent Chism,
who had recently arrived in Salt Lake City. After the employment Dismuke
visited with defendant Williams alone, and on the following day he and Chism
went to the Williams home for the purpose of making a purchase of narcotics.
Chism told Williams that he was in town to visit Dismuke, his cousin, who was
a heroin addict and in bad shape financially. He advised Williams that he was in
the heroin business and wanted to purchase substantial quantities from him for
resale by himself and Dismuke at a profit. Williams said that he could not
arrange for a large transaction since a "Black Syndicate" controlled drug traffic
in Salt Lake City. He did, however, advise Chism that he had 64 capsules of
heroin which he would sell to him for $10 each. After some negotiation
Williams offered to sell 13 capsules for $100. This offer was accepted and the
purchase consummated. The following day Chism and Dismuke returned to the
Williams residence and Chism purchased 20 capsules of heroin for $170. This
transaction was in the presence of Dismuke and an unidentified person. During
this visit Williams suggested to Chism that they both go to California where
Williams said he could arrange a large narcotics transaction. The first two
counts of the Information arose out of the first transaction, and the third and
fourth counts from the second purchase. The third and fourth counts were
dismissed as a result of evidence disclosed at the trial.
3
It is apparent from the record that Williams possessed the narcotic capsules and
was ready and willing to sell them to Chism. The only misrepresentation made
to Williams during the transactions was Chism's representation that Dismuke
was a cousin. There was no special inducement made to Williams to make the
sales and the offer to purchase merely afforded the opportunity for the
transactions to be made. To constitute entrapment the deception must be such
that it actually implants the criminal design in the mind of the accused and his
criminal conduct must be the product of the action of the government officials.
United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973);
Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 78 S.Ct. 819, 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958);
Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 53 S.Ct. 210, 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932);
United States v. Gibson, 446 F.2d 719 (10th Cir. 1971); Martinez v. United
States, 373 F.2d 810 (10th Cir. 1967). "When a person is shown to be ready and
willing to violate the law, the providing of an opportunity therefor by
undercover agents or police officers is not entrapment." United States v. Jobe,
487 F.2d 268 (10th Cir. 1973); see also Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427,
83 S. Ct. 1381, 10 L.Ed.2d 462 (1963); United States v. Crawford, 444 F.2d
1404 (10th Cir. 1971).
The name of the informant was known and the court directed the government to
produce him at the trial. Apparently the defense knew during the trial that the
informant was not available as counsel for the defendant, on cross examination,
made inquiry of the acting agent-in-charge of the Salt Lake office concerning
his whereabouts. Following an objection to this cross examination, there was an

unrecorded colloquy at the bench between the court and counsel. Thereafter the
subject was pursued no further. After the prosecution rested, the demand for
the production of the informer was renewed. When the prosecution offered to
explain the failure, the court stated:
5
"Well,
you won't need to do that. What the Government says is they don't know
where he is; they have tried to find him and can't find him. There is one report that
he is dead. That is what happens to informers sometimes, they end up dead. At any
rate, the Government doesn't know where he is. I don't know how I am going to
compel the Government to produce a witness when they don't know where he is."
6
It is clear that the court was satisfied with the unrecorded explanation of the
government concerning its failure to produce the witness. The defense did not
question the validity of the explanation and made no request for further hearing
on the reasonableness of the efforts of the prosecution to obtain the presence of
the informer. As a general rule in cases of this kind, the government must
identify an informant who participates with undercover agents in transactions
which are for the purpose of obtaining evidence of crimes and whose testimony
might be relevant to the defense. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77
S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957); United States v. Martinez, 487 F.2d 973 (10th
Cir. 1973); Garcia v. United States, 373 F.2d 806 (10th Cir. 1967). In addition
to requiring the disclosure of the informant's identity, the trend of the decisions
has been, upon demand of the defendant, to require the prosecution to produce
the informer at the time of trial. If the informer is not available, it is incumbent
upon the government to show reasonable diligence in its effort to produce him.
United States v. Pollard, 479 F.2d 310, on remand, 483 F.2d 929 (8th Cir.
1973); United States v. Jenkins, 470 F.2d 1061 (9th Cir. 1972). In United States
v. Hayes, 477 F.2d 868 (10th Cir. 1973), a case quite similar to the instant case,
this court said:
7
"Under
various circumstances the courts have held the government to a duty to
produce an informant or make a showing of a reasonable effort to do so. We are,
however, persuaded to agree with the trial court that in this case the government was
not obligated to call Ellerton as its own witness. The court accepted as sufficient the
undertaking of the prosecution to seek his present location and furnish it to the
defense. We feel this was the proper measure of the government's duty in this case.
The government is not the guarantor of the appearance of its informant at trial, but is
required to accord reasonable cooperation in securing his appearance where a timely
request is made and his testimony might substantiate a claim of the defense.
[Citations omitted]"
8
We do not hold that the government would be excused in all cases for failure to
We do not hold that the government would be excused in all cases for failure to
produce an undercover agent even after due diligence to locate him had failed.
If, in an appropriate case, the facts disclosed that the accused could not obtain a
fair trial without the presence of an informer, the result could be a lack of due
process. 8 Moore's Federal Practice p 16.06(4) (2d ed. 1965, 1973 revision). Cf.
United States v. Walton, 411 F.2d 283 (9th Cir. 1969). The instant case is not
of that kind. The only evidence in the case is that the informer's activity was
limited to the introduction of the undercover agent to Williams. He was present
but took no part in the transactions.
Affirmed.

United States v. Willie Joe Williams, 488 F.2d 788, 10th Cir. (1973)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Willie Joe Williams, 488 F.2d 788, 10th Cir. (1973)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Willie Joe Williams, 488 F.2d 788, 10th Cir. (1973)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

488 F.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

United States Court of Appeals,

Williams was convicted on two counts of an Information charging him with

his whereabouts. Following an objection to this cross examination, there was an

You might also like