United States v. Herbst, No. 10-3867 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction of attempting to entice a minor to engage in illicit sexual activities. The court rejected defendant's assertion that the district court erred in excluding two specific periods of time for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161-3174, and held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment. The district court also held that the government presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could convict defendant for attempting enticement of a minor; the evidence presented at trial clearly demonstrated that defendant was predisposed to commit this crime, and thus the district court properly denied his request for an entrapment instruction; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Speedy Trial Act claim rejected; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for attempting to entice a minor to engage in illicit sexual activities as defendant took substantial step towards completing the offense; district court did not err by refusing defendant's request for an entrapment instruction; district court did not err in rejecting defendant's request for a new trial based on a claim of newly discovered evidence.
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.