## Facts

- A paid DEA informant initiated telephone contact with Aida Gonzales-Benitez in Culiacán, Mexico about obtaining and distributing heroin.
- The informant and her daughter traveled to Culiacán, met Gonzales-Benitez and Ambrosio Hernandez-Coronel, and discussed quantities, delivery logistics, and transport methods.
- The informant introduced Gonzales-Benitez to a purported buyer who was actually a DEA agent; the parties arranged for delivery inside the United States.
- In a Nogales, Mexico hotel room, defendants produced about 13 ounces of heroin; Hernandez-Coronel stated he could supply two additional kilograms the next day and demonstrated belts used to smuggle heroin on his person.
- The heroin was concealed in the informant’s purse; Gonzales-Benitez crossed the border on foot while the others crossed by car.
- On the U.S. side, in a hotel room, Hernandez-Coronel retrieved the heroin from the purse and delivered it to the undercover agent; defendants were arrested.
- Multiple incriminating conversations were recorded during the investigation, but the recordings were not introduced at trial; officers testified to the substance of the conversations.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury instructions on entrapment misstated the law or misallocated burdens regarding government inducement and defendant predisposition.
2. Whether the government’s undercover participation in arranging and completing the transaction was so extreme as to violate due process as “outrageous government conduct.”
3. Whether restrictions on defense-requested voir dire questions were an abuse of discretion.
4. Whether allowing testimony about recorded conversations without introducing the recordings violated the best-evidence rule.
5. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for importing, bringing into the United States, and distributing heroin.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions on all counts.
- The entrapment instructions adequately distinguished between providing an opportunity and implanting criminal design and permitted the jury to decide predisposition and inducement.
- The government’s conduct did not reach the high threshold of “outrageous” involvement that would bar prosecution on due process grounds.
- The trial court acted within its discretion in conducting voir dire; defendants did not show impairment of jury impartiality or use of peremptory challenges.
- The best-evidence rule did not bar officer testimony describing conversations merely because they were recorded.
- The record contained ample evidence of knowing participation in the charged importation and distribution offenses.

## Legal Principles

- Entrapment turns on government inducement and the defendant’s predisposition; where evidence supports predisposition, entrapment is ordinarily a jury question.
- Due process bars prosecution for undercover operations only when the government’s involvement in the criminal scheme reaches an outrageous level.
- Trial courts have broad discretion over voir dire; limitations are reversible only upon a showing of resulting prejudice.
- The best-evidence rule is not automatically triggered by the existence of a recording; testimony from a witness with knowledge of the conversation may be admitted even if the conversation was recorded and the recording is not introduced.
- Sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence favorably to the verdict, a rational jury could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the heroin convictions because the jury was properly instructed on entrapment, the undercover operation did not violate due process, voir dire management was within the trial judge’s discretion, testimony about recorded conversations was admissible without producing the recordings, and the evidence was sufficient to prove knowing importation and distribution.


United States v. Gonzales-Benitez, 537 F.2d 1051 (9th Cir. 1976)