ILNews

Former officer’s convictions of bribery, attempted extortion affirmed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The sentence of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department major and city-county counselor convicted last year for attempted extortion and bribery for his role in trying to get zoning approval for a proposed strip club has been upheld by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Lincoln Plowman claimed that he should have been allowed to argue entrapment to the jury, which the District Court precluded.

While on the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council in 2009, Plowman was chairman of the committee that oversees zoning in the county and city. During this time, the FBI set up a sting operation based on Plowman’s reputation for his “questionable use of the power and influence he had acquired,” according to the 7th Circuit opinion. The FBI undercover officer posed as strip club owner who wanted to open a club in Indianapolis. During their meetings, Plowman told the undercover officer that for “a couple bucks” he knew how to “push” the strip club through the board of zoning appeals. He sought $5,000 in cash and a contribution to his campaign.

The two met over the course of several months, and when the FBI entered the room during one of their meetings, the agents didn’t arrest him. He retired from the police force in March 2010. In September 2010, a federal grand jury indicted him with federal funds bribery and attempted extortion under color of official right. The government sought to preclude Plowman from presenting an entrapment defense. Judge Larry McKinney refused to issue an entrapment instruction to the jury as Plowman wanted, and he granted the government’s motion in limine. Plowman was convicted in September 2011.

The transcripts of Plowman’s conversations with the undercover FBI agent “overwhelmingly show that Plowman was not entrapped into accepting the bribe,” Judge Daniel Manion wrote.

The 7th Circuit held that McKinney correctly concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the government induced Plowman to accept the bribe, and at no time did the undercover agent mislead Plowman into thinking that Plowman was performing a legal business service.

“The FBI conducted a standard sting operation that did not induce Plowman to accept a bribe. To argue entrapment to a jury, Plowman needed to provide sufficient evidence of both inducement and a lack of predisposition, but he failed to establish the first element,” Manion wrote in United States of America v. Lincoln Plowman,
11-3781.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • ESP
    How do these judges know all these things when everyone knows that they only know what they were told. So now it appears COA judges are making decisions based on hearsay!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT