Mathews v. United States

485 U.S. 58 (1988)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was employed by the Small Business Administration (SBA). D was responsible for the SBA's '8A Program,' which provided aid to certain small businesses. The SBA obtained government contracts and subcontracted them to program participants. The SBA would then assist the participants in performing the contracts. Midwest Knitting Mills, whose president was James DeShazer, was one of the participants in the 8A Program. DeShazer complained to a Government customer that D had repeatedly asked for loans. DeShazer believed D was not providing Midwest with certain 8A Program benefits because DeShazer had not made the requested loans. Under FBI surveillance, DeShazer offered D a loan that D had previously requested. D agreed to accept the loan, and two months later, DeShazer gave him the money. D was immediately arrested and charged with accepting a gratuity in exchange for an official act. 18 U. S. C. § 201(g). D filed a motion in limine seeking to raise an entrapment defense. The court held that entrapment was not available because D would not admit all of the elements (including the requisite mental state) of the offense charged. D testified in his own defense that although he had accepted the loan, he believed it was a personal loan unrelated to his duties at the SBA. D stated that he and DeShazer were friends and that he had accepted a personal loan from DeShazer previously. D was in dire financial straits when DeShazer broached the possibility of providing a loan. D stated that DeShazer had to quickly get rid of the money because he had been hiding the money from his wife and was concerned that she would be upset if she discovered this secret. D testified that DeShazer had also stated at one point that if D did not take the money soon, DeShazer would be tempted to spend it. D moved for a 'mistrial.' The District Court noted that the evidence of entrapment was 'shaky at best,' but reaffirmed its original ruling. The court of appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.