Jacques Polzin was convicted in the Central District of California for violating federal conflict-of-interest laws, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 208(a) and § 216(a)(2). At trial, Polzin raised an affirmative defense of entrapment by estoppel, testifying that his supervisor knew his wife owned JNJ Auto Repair and had approved him sending vehicles there. He claimed he prepared a conflict memo to document this approval. However, the government presented conflicting evidence, including testimony from Polzin's supervisor stating he was unaware of the conflict until after Polzin was charged, and testimony from a former employee that Polzin was the actual owner and CEO who hid from ICE agents when they brought vehicles to the shop. Polzin did not preserve his motion for a judgment of acquittal, leading to an appeal on sufficiency of the evidence grounds.
The panel reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence claim for plain error because Polzin failed to preserve the issue. Under this standard, the court must presume that the jury resolved any conflicting evidence in favor of the prosecution. The court cited United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1164 (9th Cir. 2010), stating that if evidence conflicts, the court 'must presume––even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record––that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution[] and must defer to that resolution.' The court found that a reasonable jury could reject Polzin's defense because the government presented evidence that his supervisor did not know about the conflict and that Polzin concealed his ownership from ICE agents. The court reasoned that if Polzin truly believed he had approval, he would have had little reason to hide from federal agents. Consequently, the court held that 'no rational factfinder, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, would reject [Polzin's] defense' was not met, and the conviction was not disturbed.
Polzin's conviction remains in effect, and no relief is granted. The decision reinforces that in cases involving entrapment by estoppel, the jury's credibility determinations regarding conflicting testimony about supervisor knowledge and the defendant's conduct are binding on appeal when reviewed for plain error. The ruling clarifies that concealment of the conflict from authorities can undermine a claim of reliance on official approval.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download