YOU MAKE THE CALL/STATE OF FLORIDA V. JACOB SHARP Case No.

10-00341CF10A

On May 17, 2012, the Honorable Barbara McCarthy presided over an evidentiary hearing on Defendant Jacob Sharp's Motion to Dismiss the 25 year minimummandatory FSP sentence he's facing as a result of a January 2010 allegedTrafficking over 28 grams of Oxycodone, among lesser counts. Having heard all the evidence and testimony of both State and Defense witnesses, the Court, due to a Defense sheduling conflict, has yet to hear argument or issue it's ruling.

While Defendant Sharp was recovering from a cocaine overdose at First Step Sober House, he meets recovering addict , Vinny Fabozzi who quickly becomes Sharp's NA Sponsor. Sharp shares his most intimate secrets with Fabozzi and begins the arduous task of working the 12-Steps associated with recovery and Narcotics Anonymous. During the 7 -month sponsorship, Sharp relapses and cops a script for the customary 30 milligram roxy 'blues" and a host of other narcotics. He consequently absconds from First Step and a VOP warrant is issued for his arrest. While at large, Fabozzi threatens to drop a dime on Sharp and disclose his whereabouts if he refuses for fork over some "blues." Despite having NO HISTORY OF ANY SALES, DELIVERIES OR DEALINGS IN NARCOTICS, Sharp acquieses and delivers 10 "blues" to Fabozzi. Sharp was never charged with that delivery. Sharp testified that he was predominately motivated by the fear of cold-turkey opiate withdrawal in the Broward County Jail without any medical treatment or supervision , if Fabozzi followed through with his threats. Sponsor Fabozzi then introduces Sharp to Jason Beckman, Fabozzi's cousin, a Confidential Informant for the Coral Springs Police Department. Beckman, as his cousin Fabozzi understood, was working off a 60-year max Trafficking charge and was looking to win a sentencing adjustment by virtue of a narcotics transaction with Sharp. Coral Springs narcotic Detective Chad Kuschel testified that had he been aware of the introduction to Beckman by Sharp's sponsor, that it would have been "inappropriate" based on the nature of the relationship of the parties.

Sharp was "targeted" based on Beckman's "word" to Detective Kuschel when he advised the Detective that he had "heard" that Sharp was selling narcotics to other addicts at First Step. Law Enforcement made no efforts to corroborate Beckman's claims and was therefore at a loss to describe exactly what criminal activity they were "interrupting" when pressed under cross-examination. Beckman, also an opiate addict, testified he's been clean since his arrest but was unable to recall his clean date and then, at the same hearing, admitted to using opiates while engaged as a C.I. This admission and Sharp's claim that Beckman snorted a handful of 'blues" after another uncharged delivery, would constitute a violation of the terms and conditions of Beckman's , substantial assistance agreement. Moreover, Defense counsel recently discovered Beckman's November 2011 possession arrest while on probation after getting the benefit of his assistance at sentencing. Notwithstanding this blatant violation of the terms and conditions of the substantial assistance agreement, Beckman perjured himself by failing to disclose this arrest as did his supervising agent, Detective Chad Kuschel. The State, despite a letter to Felony Trial Lead, Jeff Marcus and prosecutor Eva Solomos, over a month ago, has yet to file the proper Brady notice or disclose Beckman's arrest while acting as a C.I. Beckman testified he was not provided any listening devices or recording equipment until the day of Sharp's arrest despite numerous , undocumented phone calls to Sharp in the weeks preceding the arrest. Beckman testified that Entrapment was " If someone goes Doctor shopping and I finance the visits, then that's Entrapment." Beckman was further unable to identify his controlling agent, and named a Detective other than Kuschel as an apparent result of his inability to grasp the meaning of the term "supervising agent." At one point prior to any Trafficking transaction, Sharp disingenuously advises Beckman that he is unable to do the deal as a result of a family emergency in Ft. Meyer's, which Detective Kuschel acknowledged was pure fiction. Sharp testified that he was looking to avoid the entire fiasco, living in such constant fear of being turned in by his sponsor,that he called his mother in Tampa and persuaded her to pick him up and drive him back to Tampa so he could take on the tortuous task of weaning himself off his meds with the love and support of his nurturing mother.

While suffering the agony of cold -turkey opiate withdrawal, Sharp, unable to bare the pain, had his meds mailed to Tampa, knowing that one pill would quickly end the agony of withdrawal. After returning to South Florida shortly thereafter, Sharp eventually agreed to sell a Trafficking amount (although the weight negotiated is disputed) number of "blues' to Beckman. Because Objective Entrapment is a legal issue, the question of egregious police conduct is decided by the Court. Because such a finding constitutes a Constitutional Due Process violation, the fact that Sharp may have committed the crime alleged, a finding of egregious police conduct, would subject the entire case to an outright dismissal. Moreover, a jury question remains as to the issue of subjective Entrapment, which, if there is sufficient evidence that Sharp lacked the predisposition to Traffick in narcotics, that, independent of any prospective police misconduct, such a finding would result in an outright acquittal. Should there be no finding of egregious police conduct and the theory for a Subjective Entrapment Defense is unsupported by the record, the arrest appeared to be a premature take-down, the $2,000.00 cash, marked and designated for the deal, was recovered from the front passenger seat of Beckman's wired vehicle where Sharp was seated at the time of the alleged transaction. Because Sharp had come straight from his Doctor visit, he was holding his entire script and although charged with everything in the multiple prescription bottles, the RECORDED calls preceding the arrest were predominately connected to an amount, arguably less than the 28-grams, calling for the 25-year minimum mandatory FSP sentence. Sharp has been detained in the BCJ for a period exceeding 2 years.

Does the fact that Sharp has no priors for sales, deliveries, or other narcotics transactions in his entire criminal history suggest a lack of predisposition? Is it relevant that it was over a period of well over a month, with numerous phone calls , most of which are undocumented, that Sharp eventually agreed to do the deal?

Was Sharp's lack of predisposition supported by facts and did his fear of "cold-turkey" opiate withdrawal play a role in his decision to engage in Trafficking? Is it outrageous and egregious police conduct to engage an unsupervised and uninformed C.I., who, by virtue of his cousin, is introduced to a target who is sponsored in the NA program by that very cousin, knowingly for the purpose of working substantial and seeking a sentence reduction? Does Law Enforcement have a legal obligation to corroborate the claims of a C. i. BEFORE targeting a suspect?