Introduction

In United States of America v. Askia Washington, 869 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2017), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed significant procedural and substantive issues arising from a reverse stash house sting operation. Askia Washington, the appellant, was involved in a government-engineered scheme intended to entrap individuals into committing robberies at purported stash houses. The key issues on appeal included constitutional challenges regarding mandatory minimum sentencing and ineffective assistance of counsel, as well as disputes over discovery related to claims of selective enforcement and racial profiling by law enforcement agencies.

Summary of the Judgment

The Third Circuit affirmed Washington’s convictions on the grounds that his mandatory minimum sentence under federal law did not violate due process rights, and that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked sufficient merit. However, the court vacated the district court’s denial of Washington’s discovery requests pertaining to selective enforcement claims. The appellate court established a clearer distinction between selective prosecution and selective enforcement, adopting a more flexible standard for granting discovery in cases where defendants allege discriminatory enforcement practices by law enforcement agencies.

Analysis

Complex Concepts Simplified

Selective Prosecution vs. Selective Enforcement

Selective Prosecution refers to the government's decision to prosecute individuals based on prejudicial factors, such as race, religion, or other protected characteristics, without a valid legal basis. Defendants claiming selective prosecution argue that they were unfairly targeted compared to others who were similarly situated.

Selective Enforcement, on the other hand, involves law enforcement practices that disproportionately target specific groups during the investigation phase, such as targeting certain neighborhoods or demographics for sting operations. Unlike selective prosecution, selective enforcement pertains to the actions taken during the investigation rather than the prosecutorial decision to charge.

Reverse Stash House Sting Operations

These operations are contrived scenarios where law enforcement agencies create fictitious stash houses purported to contain drugs, aiming to entrap individuals into committing crimes such as robbery. Critics argue that these stings can manufacture criminal activity, leading to convictions based on actions encouraged by the government rather than genuine criminal intent.

Armstrong/Bass Standard

Originating from Armstrong and Bass, this standard requires defendants alleging selective prosecution to provide "clear evidence" of discriminatory intent and effect. It establishes a high threshold, making it challenging for defendants to obtain discovery or prove their claims.

Davis Decision

United States v. Davis introduced a nuanced approach by the Seventh Circuit, distinguishing selective enforcement from selective prosecution. It allowed for "some evidence" to justify limited discovery in selective enforcement claims, recognizing that law enforcement actions could be independently scrutinized outside the prosecutorial discretion framework.

Conclusion

The United States of America v. Askia Washington decision marks a pivotal moment in distinguishing between selective prosecution and selective enforcement within the context of reverse stash house sting operations. By adopting a more flexible discovery standard for selective enforcement claims, the Third Circuit empowers defendants to challenge potentially discriminatory law enforcement practices more effectively. This not only enhances the fairness of prosecutions but also ensures that sentencing remains proportionate to actual culpability rather than being manipulated by government-engineered criminal activity. The judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's essential role in safeguarding against governmental overreach and maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system.