United States v. Drury

396 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2005)

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

Whatley, an ATF agent, resided with D intermittently for several months. D complained bitterly and frequently about his wife, telling Whatley that he needed 'some relief' from her, and that 'she needed to go.' D told Whatley that 'Mary has got to die' and 'Mary has got to go,' and insisting that 'it had to look like an accident.' D asked Whatley if he would kill Mary Drury or find someone else to do so. Agents set up a sting on D. Whatley gave an undercover cellular telephone number D again asked to have his wife killed. D placed a total of four calls to Agent Valoze's cellular phone. D provided Valoze with an unloaded .38 caliber handgun and -- after further negotiating the fee --$250 as payment for the murder. Eventually D gave the go-ahead for Valoze to proceed with the murder as planned. ATF agents arrested D. D's defense was that the whole murder-for-hire scheme was merely an ATF role-playing exercise. He testified that he never spoke to Whatley about killing his wife, but merely about his concern that she was having an affair and his desire to hire a private investigator. D claimed that Whatley then informed him that D could participate in an ATF training program, whereby he would pretend to seek a murder-for-hire, and ATF agents would place Mary Drury under surveillance and provide D with a detailed written report of their findings. D denied ever actually intending to have his wife killed, and stated that his $250 payment to Agent Valoze was simply reimbursement for the surveillance. Mrs. Drury's testimony at trial corroborated her husband's claim that the couple had never discussed divorce. Whatley denied ever discussing or engaging in role-playing with D. D, in turn, called two character witnesses, Ted Turner and Joseph Bridgers, who attested to Whatley's reputation for untruthfulness. D also sought to introduce testimony about his character for truthfulness, under Federal Rule of Evidence 608. The government objected, arguing that Rule 608 was inapplicable since it had questioned only D's credibility generally, not his character for truthfulness. The district court ruled the testimony inadmissible. D was convicted and appealed.