Tillmon is the only one of the so-called Rockfish 15 who will stand trial in the case, the remaining defendants choosing to take plea deals.
“The defendant asserts that he intends to argue that he was entrapped by the government into participating in the drug trafficking organization for which he is charged,” United States Attorney John Brice wrote in the motion. “It is undisputed, however, that the defendant was not recruited to join the drug trafficking organization by the government. Instead, the defendant was recruited by a co-defendant.”
The Fourth Circuit Court holds derivative entrapment is not a defense, Brice wrote, and Tillmon is not entitled to argue entrapment as a defense at trial as a matter of law. “Solicitation of the crime alone is not sufficient to grant the instruction, as that is not the kind of conduct that would persuade an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime.”

(See related story at this link)

Brice wrote there was no improper government action because Tillmon was recruited by a private citizen and a claim of derivative entrapment is impermissible “And because there was no improper government action. He also cannot show a lack of predisposition because he readily and willingly joined the drug conspiracy once he was informed of it.”
Tillmon willingly participated in three separate operations spanning the course of seven months, the motion said. “A month later, he then returned for yet a fourth operation, at which point he was arrested. The defendant was motivated by the profit that he earned providing protection for the drug shipments.”
Brice wrote undercover agents never threatened or coerced the defendants to participate or to continue participating. “In fact, during the dinner meeting before the defendant’s first drug run, (agents) told the new recruits that they did not have to participate and it was ‘no problem’ if the defendant did not want to participate. The (agents) said that they could ‘part ways and shake hands.’” The defendant chose instead to show up the next day to begin his participation in the drug trafficking. The defendant’s eagerness to commit the crimes over and over again is evidence that he possessed a predisposition for the criminal activity and therefore was not entrapped.”
The motion states even a neuropsychological report prepared by Tillmon’s legal team supports the conclusion he was predisposed because it concludes he is more likely “to engage the people and things that are familiar from previous situations instead of those that are novel in the present situation” and that his “behavior tends away from unexpected or impulsive actions and toward repetition of prior ways of behaving.”