UNITED STATES V. BURROWS
36 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 1994)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an appeal from a conviction for drug trafficking crimes.
FACTS: A DEA informant, Bugsy, had consensual telephone monitored conversations with
Burrows (D). Bugsy offered to put D in touch with a prospective buyer who wished to purchase
five pounds of meth. The buyer was a DEA agent. D went to his source, Rodriguez and got five
pounds of meth and went to the exchange and was arrested. Immediately upon his arrest D
professed that he was working undercover for the Riverside County Deputy Sheriff, Kenneth
Vann, in order to arrest Rodriguez. D then offered to lure Rodriguez to the location with a
story that the deal was going to fall apart because the buyers had not brought enough money.
Rodriguez arrived with two companions to negotiate. They were arrested. D continued to
cooperate with the government, but the government did not believe D's story and prosecuted D
with the others. The deputy appeared at trial and disclaimed the fact that D was working for
him but did state that he had meet with D and discussed that possibility. The jury was
instructed on the defense of public authority. D was convicted and D appealed; he could only
make out a defense of public authority if he reasonably believed that he was acting pursuant
to police authority.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
