Seventh Circuit Finds Defendant’s Statement That He Wanted to Martyr Himself Was Relevant to His Entrapment Defense

Federal Rule of Evidence 401 states that

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

In other words, to be relevant, evidence must be both (a) probative and (b) material. So, if a defendant is charged with illegal possession of two machine guns and a silencer and plans to raise an entrapment defense, would his statement that it was his “intention a long time ago” to martyr himself be relevant? That was the question addressed by the Seventh Circuit in its recent opinion in United States v. Hamzeh, 2021 WL 364212 (7th Cir. 2021).

In Hamzeh, the facts were as stated above. In Hamzeh, in response to a pre-trial motion in limine, the district court judge “excluded a conversation in which Hamzeh stated it was his “intention a long time ago” to martyr himself. It found the statement irrelevant concerning predisposition.” In response to the State’s interlocutory appeal, the Seventh Circuit disagreed, concluding that

Under Mayfield and its progeny, a defendant’s statement about when his intent to use a weapon was formed is certainly relevant. Hamzeh’s mental state and predisposition to obtain a machinegun will be central issues at trial. The fact Hamzeh stated he intended to commit an attack a long time ago, if believed by the jury, makes it more likely he was predisposed to obtain two machineguns and a silencer.

The court expressed concern about conflating predisposition to commit a mass attack with predisposition to commit the charged offenses of possession. These two concepts are not mutually exclusive under the law of relevance. If believed by the jury, the fact Hamzeh wanted to commit a mass attack is evidence he was predisposed to obtain the weapons necessary to do so.

In other words, because the question of whether Hamzeh was predisposed to commit the crimes charges was of consequence (material) to his entrapment claim and because his statement made it more probable that he was predisposed (probative), the statement was relevant.

-CM