MEMORANDUM
To: Professor Railing
From: Greg McDowell-Dresden
Date: October 12th, 2021
Re: Vincent Carter Case
M08 Assignment – Final Research Project
FACTS
- On April 30th, 1983, at 11:45 P.M., The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Street Crime Attack Team (S.C.A.T) unit performed a decoy operation on the corner of Fremont Street and Casino Center Blvd. The officers on the decoy team are Smith, Yancy, Harper, and Donna Grayson was the decoy, and the other officers were her backup. Officers Grayson placed a $1, a $5 bill with a simulated $100 bill in a side zippered pocket of her bag exposed so a person could see the money. The money was tightly secured by the zipper that would take significant force to remove the money.
- Officer Grayson was waiting for the walk signal to change at the intersection of Fremont Street to proceed to walk southbound on the west side of the sidewalk on Casino Center Blvd; as she looked back briefly, she recognized one of the suspects, Davis, was following her about four to seven feet behind her. The suspect, Robert Davis asks Officer Grayson to borrow a pen; she said she did not have a pen to loan him. The suspect, Davis, walked about 8 to 10 feet away, but he returned to ask Officer Grayson for a paper, and she replied that she didn’t have a piece of paper. The other Officer, Yancy, was near the entrance of the Horseshoe Club observing the interaction between Officers Grayson and the suspect, Davis. Again, the suspect, Davis, walked away about 8 to 10 feet from Officer Grayson, and then he motioned with his hands for the other two men to come over to where he was standing. The three suspects were chatting together for about 15 to 30 seconds; one was Davis, the other was Vincent Carter, and the third suspect was unidentified. Officer Grayson was waiting for the walk signal to change at the intersection; once the light changed, she proceeded to cross to the other side of the street. As they continued to walk, Carter yelled at Officer Grayson that he wanted to speak with her, and she looked back, seeing Davis, one of the suspects 15 to 20 feet behind her, and as Carter was four to seven feet behind Davis. While Officer Grayson was responding to Carter, Davis came behind on the right side of the Officer, took the money, and ran.
- Officers Grayson and Yancy arrested Davis, and in his possession was the marked money he took from the side pocket of her bag. Both men were charged with larceny, and Carter was sentenced to ten years in prison. However, is this considered cruel and unusual being disproportionate to the sentencing phase to the law?
- Carter hired our firm, and that he was entrapped by the Officers of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department S.C.A.T Unit and sentenced to ten years is disproportionate, therefore cruel, and unusual.
ISSUES
- However, is this entrapment considered cruel and unusual, being disproportionate to ten years sentencing phase to his counter partner in the crime committed that would apply under the law?
- Did the Officers handle Carter’s arrest without committing entrapment under his Constitutional Amendment Rights?
HOLDING/RULE
1. Yes, Mr. Carter was convicted for calling Officer Grayson, saying that he wanted to talk with her, but there was no evidence he was commissioning a crime with Mr. Davis.
2. Yes, the officers set up an operation that enticed an individual to commit a crime by Mr. Davis, which led to the arrest and conviction of both men, which Mr. Carter, who is innocent.
REASONING/ANALYSIS
The issue is that the officers set up a decoy to invite or entice a person to commit a crime by taking money that was exposed on the side of the pocket of Officer Grayson’s bag. Carter felt he was being entrapped and lured by the officer in a sting operation to commit a crime of larceny like the other Co-Defendant Davis who took the money. He felt ten years of being incarcerated and disproportionate to his sentencing phase was harsh. The evidence was found in possession of his Co-Defendant Davis when the officers arrested him. There should be a line between the law and entrapment by the officer doing their jobs. The entrapment defense is not equal protection under the federal law of the fourteen amendments without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws according to U.S.C.S. Const. Amend. 14§ 1. The evidence is generally admissible, that is, under Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 48.025. is limited by the Constitution of the United States and the State of Nevada. Defendant Carter admits to calling Officer Grayson, saying that he wanted to talk with her, but could he have been warning the officer that a crime was in progress to take place. Defendant Carter did not knowingly or intentionally attempt to take any money or property from Officer Grayson as the court should have found him not guilty of this crime, and he was lured in a sting operation by Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Street Crime Attack Team (S.C.A.T).
The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt with many cases of entrapment against the defendant by the police. In their decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling has been unanimous with a significant majority and a high degree to subjugate the jurisprudence over the lower courts verdict, 1 The Entrapment Defense § 11.02 (2020). The entrapment defense related to this case requires the officers to maintain a certain standard of expectation they are to follow under the law without commission and the suspect to engage or to commit a crime 1 The Entrapment Defense § 12.02 (2020). However, the officers made money available in creating this bait for any person to participate in committing a crime 1 The Entrapment Defense § 1.05D (2020), but Carter did not take part in physically taking the money from Officer Grayson. The evidence against Carter does not support the confinement of ten years in prison as there have been other cases of the officer’s using persuasion against the citizen to the commission of committing a crime. In this case, “The entrapment statute, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-209(2) (1977)., provides: Entrapment occurs when a law enforcement officer or any person acting in cooperation with him, induces the commission of an offense by using persuasion or other means likely to cause normally law-abiding persons to commit the offense. Only if there is no factual issue to be resolved can the appellate court find that entrapment existed as a matter of law. On appeal, the court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and affirm if there is substantial evidence to support it,” Walls v. State, 8 Ark. App. 315, 652 S.W.2d 37 (1983).
The Officers handled Carter’s arrest by committing entrapment in violation of his Constitutional Amendment Rights. Under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, each U.S. citizen has the Fundamental Rights to a Procedural Due Process in the court decision of sentencing phase be fair according to U.S.C.S. Const. Amend. 8., and the punishment should not be cruel and unusual. If aiding and abetting, Carter would need to know that Defendant Davis would commit or commission a crime that was about to occur with knowledge and intent to help facilitate that crime People v. Shepherd, 63 Mich. App. 316, 234 N.W.2d 502 (1975). The sentencing for Carter of ten years to confinement seems disproportionate to the crime that was committed by his co-defendant having the evidence on his personal body, yet, this seems to be cruel and unusual punishment, Streat v. State, 239 Md. 694, 211 A.2d 709 (1965)., for Carter asking to speak with Officer Grayson. Under the U.S.C.S. Const. Amend. 14 we respectfully ask the Court of Appeal to overturn the lower court decision of conviction. The District of Nevada has local rules of practices for the United States District Court divided into three parts D. Nevada LR IA 1-1., part IA, IB, and I.
My client Mr. Carter admits to calling Officer Grayson, insisting that he wanted to talk with her. He did not commit or commission the crime by stealing the money out of her side pocket purse. The evidence shows and proves in court that Co-Defendant Davis is the individual who committed the crime. Mr. Carter did not contribute to aid and abet with the other Defendant Davis in the crime. In this case, the officers conducted themselves in a matter that baited Defendant Carter to be a part of a crime he did not commit the United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 93 S. Ct. 1637 (1973).
In the original case, Mr. Carter was the Co-Defendant, respectfully asking the court for a motion to dismiss or suspend his prior sentencing of ten years of confinement in prison. Under federal rule, U.S.C.S. Fed Rules Crim Proc R 32 “(i) Sentencing. (3) Court Determinations. At sentencing, the court: (B) must—for any disputed portion of the presentence report or other controverted matter—rule on the dispute or determine that a ruling is unnecessary either because the matter will not affect sentencing, or because the court will not consider the matter in sentencing; and.” The person who is committing a robbery taking from another person can receive sentencing as following according to Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.380 (LexisNexis) “2. A person who commits robbery is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than 15 years.”
Defendant Carter’s only connection to this case is calling for Officer Grayson, which leads to his arrest. In the original court hearing, the Prosecutor failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the intent that Carter knew Co-Defendant Davis was going to take the money from Officers Grayson. Also, the Prosecutor was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was a connection, Stevens v. United States, 249 A.2d 514 (D.C. 1969)., between Mr. Davis and Mr. Carter working together to commit a commission of a crime. If this sets a precedent for present and future court cases where the citizens who are just bystanders are arrested, then our juridical system has failed to protect the people under the law of due process.
DECISION/CONCLUSION
Under the U.S. Constitution Eight Amendment, the punishment shall not be cruel or unusual, and the sentencing phase shall be fair because the Co-Defendant Davis in the original trial was found guilty, and with the evidence on his personal belonging when arrested.
The State of Nevada, under the evidence, follows the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitution state code in the process of convicting the alleged defendant. The Entrapment Defense rule states that an officer, police, or law enforcement can not entice or invite a person to participate in committing a crime under federal law. The officers intended to facilitate a crime by luring a person to the commission of breaking the law.
We request for The Court of Appeal to examine the evidence in which the prosecutor’s office did not have enough facts for the conviction of Mr. Carter. The original conviction and his sentencing must be overturned based on federal statutes and state rules.
- U.S. Constitution Eighth Amendment
- U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment
- U.S.C.S fed rules crim Proc R. 32
- The Entrapment Defense § 11.02 (2020)
- The Entrapment Defense § 12.02 (2020)
- The Entrapment Defense § 1.05D (2020)
- Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 48.025
- Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 34.810 (LexisNexis)
The conviction should be considered cruel and unusual because there is a lack of evidence for his ten-year sentencing Franklin v. Thomas, No. 15-0549, 2016 W. Va. LEXIS 94 (Feb. 16, 2016)., under habeas corpus relief of unlawful detention Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 34.810 (LexisNexis). The prosecutor’s office could not prove that the two men had a connection with each other to aiding and abetting the commission of a crime together. The prosecutor’s office was unable to prove Mr. Carter’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Written by:
Greg MD
Greg MD Blog 
Leave a comment