 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
U.S. v. Burrows
U. S Ct. App. 1994
Author:- Sam Biers
Public Authority
Relevant Facts: Informant for the DEA made telephone calls to the Df which were monitored. The informant offered to put the Df in contact with purchase a prospective buyer who wanted 5 lbs of meth. DF contacted Rodriguez and received the meth just prior to the meeting with the informant. Df was arrested after he produced the meth. Df claimed he was working simultaneously for the Sheriff’s dept. to arrest Rodriguez, and agreed to contact Rodriguez for the DEA. Df set up a meeting with Rodriguez who was then arrested. Burrows was prosecuted along with Rodriguez. The Sheriff’s deputy testified that Df was asked to target Rodriguez but that df did not work for the Sheriff’s dept at the time in question.
Legal Issue(s): Whether the def makes out a defense of public authority when he has shown that his reliance on governmental authority was reasonable as well as sincere?
Court’s Holding: Yes
Procedure: Convicted in the U S D Ct jury for drug trafficking crimes, df appealed. Affirmed in part; remanded in part.
Law or Rule(s): The defense of public authority exists when a df claims he performed the acts for which he was charged in response to a request from an agency of the govt.
Court Rationale: The elements of the public authority defense are found in the federal common law not the procedural rules. [Baptista] Whether the govt agent in fact had authority to empower the df to perform the acts in question.
The fact that a rule requiring pretrial notice of intent to raise defense of actual or believed exercise of public authority refers only to belief, and not to reasonable belief, does not limit or expand elements of public authority defense. If df relies on govt, mistakenly, and performs an illegal act, then the ct will not require the govt to lose a conviction unless df can show reliance was reasonable. A df makes out a defense of public authority only when he has shown that his reliance on government authority was reasonable as well as sincere.
Defendant’s Argument: Df’s defense of public authority is valid b/c he has shown that his reliance on governmental authority was reasonable as well as sincere