## Facts

- Federal authorities investigated suspected information leaks from the Tulsa Police Department and suspected drug, money-laundering, and gambling activity by Kejuan Daniels.
- Daniels’s girlfriend, a police records clerk, became a focus of the leak investigation; subpoenaed phone records showed frequent contact between Daniels and Tulsa Police Officer Rico Yarbrough.
- Yarbrough and Daniels were close friends after co-coaching a youth football team where their sons played.
- Investigators used a wiretap during the investigation.
- The government’s theory was that Yarbrough used his position to warn Daniels in advance about law-enforcement actions, thereby obstructing and conspiring to obstruct a federal proceeding and unlawfully warning of a warrant.
- Yarbrough was convicted of (1) obstructing an official proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)), (2) conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(k)), and (3) providing unlawful notice of a search or seizure warrant (18 U.S.C. § 2232(c)).
- At trial, it was largely undisputed that Yarbrough took certain actions; the principal dispute was whether he acted with the required corrupt intent.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court committed reversible error by excluding Yarbrough’s proffered evidence of good character and law-abiding nature under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
2. Whether the district court erred in denying Yarbrough’s motion to suppress wiretap evidence (including whether interception was properly minimized).
3. Whether the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment.
4. Whether it was error to enhance Yarbrough’s sentence based on acquitted conduct.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the convictions and remanded because excluding Yarbrough’s character evidence was reversible, non-harmless error.
- The court affirmed the district court’s admission of the challenged wiretap evidence.
- The court affirmed the refusal to give an entrapment instruction because the evidentiary record did not support it.
- The court did not reach the sentencing issue in light of the reversal and potential retrial.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1), a criminal defendant may offer evidence of a pertinent character trait to support an inference that he did not commit the charged offense with the required mental state.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 405(a), when character evidence is admissible, it may be proved by reputation or opinion testimony.
- When the defendant’s intent is the central contested element, exclusion of admissible, pertinent character evidence bearing on intent can affect substantial rights and require reversal if not harmless.
- Wiretap evidence need not be suppressed when the interception is authorized by law and minimization efforts are reasonable under the circumstances.
- An entrapment instruction is warranted only when evidence supports both government inducement and the defendant’s lack of predisposition.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that the district court’s exclusion of Yarbrough’s proffered law-abiding character evidence improperly deprived him of admissible proof on the only meaningful contested issue—corrupt intent—requiring reversal and remand, while affirming the wiretap ruling and the denial of an entrapment instruction.


United States v. Yarbrough, 527 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2008)