Experts: Entrapment A Tough Defense for White

by Paul Bass | March 26, 2007 8:27 PM | | Comments (2)

pattis.jpgEmbattled police Lt. Billy White’s best defense may be to argue the FBI entrapped him in its bribery and theft investigation. Legal experts — including a defense attorney (pictured) otherwise critical of the FBI probe — said he faces a big lift.

White was caught up in a classic federal sting. The government created a situation where a target had a chance to commit a crime. And the target allegedly did. The feds charge that White, head of the police department’s narcotics unit, stole cash on several occasions, on top of taking bribes from bail bondsmen. (Click here to read a potboiler 57-page FBI affidavit about the case against Lt. White and co. For other related stories on the scandal, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here , here and here.)

White’s attorney indicated in a federal court appearance that he may argue that an undercover agent lured White into committing criminal acts he otherwise wouldn’t have committed.

That defense is familiar to people who have watched the modern wave of such stings. The two most prominent such stings: Abscam, and the arrest of former Washington, D.C., Mayor Marion Barry.

In Abscam, FBI agents dressed as Arab shieks and offered bribes to Congressmen. The Congressmen were caught on camera taking the “bribes.” (Click here to read a Wikipedia summary of the case.)

stan%20twardy.jpgSome of the targets appealed, arguing they FBI entrapped them. They ultimately lost, and a standard was set that survives to this day, according to former Connecticut U.S. Attorney Stanley Twardy (pictured): The feds can conduct these stings if they can show the target has a “predisposition” to commit the crimes.

“From what I’ve seen — and it’s all in the media — I think the government has done a pretty good job,” said Twardy, who’s now in private practice. “The FBI certainly can do it. The question is: Did he have a predisposition? Or was it because of the government’s actions?”

Meyer_Jeff.jpg“According to paragraph eight in the affidavit it’s stated in conclusory fashion that the undercover agent started cooperating with the FBI precisely because it was White who approached him in the first place to conduct the illegal activity. The affidavit doesn’t go into more detail; it’s not required to. Assuming there’s a basis for it, that alone would pop the balloon of the entrapment defense,” said Jeffrey Meyer (pictured), a former federal prosecutor who now teaches at Quinnipiac’s law school. Meyer heads a new “accountability” task force the mayor set up in the wake of the scandal.

“That clearly is what the argument will be about it. With any sting operation, a common defense is going to be, ‘My client was entrapped in some manner,’” Meyer said. “But to the extent that the government is able to show that the client suggested doing something wrong, that makes it much harder to prevail. Let alone what you’ve got with the issues concerning Billy White’s background that have been reported in the press. That would also feed into a government argument that there was no lack of predisposition here.”

Still, Meyer said, White’s defense lawyer, Hubert Santos, is wise to consider the entrapment defense. However, he added, “It’s very difficult to defend a case in which there are wiretap recordings, and there are so many of them here apparently. But I’m not in a position to second-guess the defense here.”

Santos did not respond to requests for comment.

Norm Pattis (pictured at the top of this story) doesn’t hesitate to question the strategy.

“In my view, this is a garden-variety sting operation and Hubey is smoking some of the New Haven’s seized product if he sees entrapment here,” said Pattis, a local criminal-defense lawyer who is often critical of law enforcement. In this column Pattis called the other part of the FBI case, involving bail bondsmen a “political prosecution.”

“As I read the affidavit, which is all I know, a cop heard White utter words that sounded like he was ready, willing and able to commit a crime. In other words, he had the predisposition to act. He was not induced to do something he wasn’t otherwise willing to perform. Hence, no entrapment. Most damning in this regard is the soliloquy about the potential dead [confidential informant]. No one had to twist White’s arm into [allegedly] grabbing the money. He talked himself into it.”







Comments

Posted by: nfjanette [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 27, 2007 1:06 PM

Here's a radical thought: why not let the court decide the facts and the outcome, rather than attempting to perform a trial-by-media as in this article?

Posted by: Ben Ross | March 28, 2007 10:33 AM

I love the suggestion of 'nfjanette' and hope to know the trial dates....'speedy trial' and all. I wonder why the court always take so long,considering the information is in the both the defense and prosecution hands? I've heard that justice delayed is justice denied? When this story broke more arrests were predicted ....what is the stasis of the ongoing investigation?

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links


Legal Notices

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35