Background
In March two thousand twenty-two, Gary Warick was arrested in Kentucky and detained. While in custody, he shared a cell with Billy Hunter, who later informed authorities that Warick had plotted to hire a hitman to kill two deputies and a judge. In exchange for immunity, Hunter agreed to work as a paid informant for the Kentucky State Police. Hunter arranged two controlled drug purchases from Warick in April and May two thousand twenty-two. During these transactions, Warick sold methamphetamine to Hunter, who was recording the exchanges. Police subsequently stopped Warick, seized cash and drugs from his person and home, and executed a search warrant that uncovered additional methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Warick was indicted on four counts related to drug distribution and possession with intent to distribute. At trial, Warick testified that he was entrapped by Hunter but also admitted to selling drugs even after learning Hunter was an informant. The jury convicted him on all counts and ordered forfeiture of the seized cash. Warick appealed, challenging the denial of entrapment instructions, the exclusion of evidence, and the denial of witness subpoenas.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the denial of jury instructions under an abuse of discretion standard. It held that an entrapment defense requires both government inducement and a lack of predisposition. The court found that the district court correctly limited the entrapment instruction to the first count because Warick’s own testimony showed he was predisposed to sell drugs on subsequent counts after learning the buyer was a government informant. The court also affirmed the denial of motions to suppress and to subpoena witnesses, noting that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee the attendance of any specific witness and that the government did not prevent the introduction of essential evidence. The court concluded that the evidence of Warick’s prior drug activity and his admissions at trial were sufficient to support the conviction and forfeiture.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court on all issues.
United States v. Warick, No. 24-6024 (6th Cir. May 28, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the requirement that defendants must demonstrate a lack of predisposition to commit a crime to successfully claim entrapment, particularly when they continue criminal conduct after learning of government involvement.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download