United States v. Harriman, No. 19-2679 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction of two counts of murder-for-hire. The court upheld the jury's verdict rejecting defendant's entrapment defense where defendant did not produce sufficient evidence that the ATF induced him to commit murder-for-hire. Furthermore, a reasonable jury could find that the prosecution proved defendant was predisposed to commit this crime. In this case, the evidence established that defendant previously sought to hire someone to murder his ex-wife through a fellow inmate, he contacted the purported hitman, and entered into a written contract with the purported hitman. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for new trial on the entrapment defense.
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for new counsel where most of defendant's complaints do not relate to anything in the adversarial process in this case. Finally, the court declined to consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.
Court Description: [Clark, District Judge, Author, with Loken and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - Conviction. Harriman was convicted of murder-for-hire after an undercover agent posed as hitman and entered into a written contract with Harriman. On appeal, Harriman argues the evidence established an entrapment defense. There was insufficient evidence produced that the agent induced Harriman to commit murder-for-hire, a reasonable jury could find the prosecution proved he was predisposed to comment the crime, and the evidence established that he sought someone else to commit the murder. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial on the entrapment defense or in denying him motion for new counsel. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel will not be considered on direct appeal and this case is not an extraordinary exception.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.