Continued...​



 After the verdict, Duper and his brother-in-law, Brian Briggs, hugged outside the fifth-floor courtroom of U.S. District Judge Stanley Marcus. 



'I've learned my lesson about using drugs' said Duper, surrounded by his wifeRenee, and lawyers. 'Drigs almost destroyed my life.' Jurors later said three factors help lead them to the verdict.



- Investigators, posing as drug dealers, knew Duper was financially strapped and allowed him to pay $8,000 for a $19000 broilk of cocaine. Duper had to borrow the cash from a  former teammate, Roy Foster.

- The informant, Brad Gallagher, called Duper repeatedly to close the deal. Gallagher made the calls under orders from Coral Springs detective Clyde Parry and DEA agent Robert McKnight. 

- Prosecutors lacked recorded conversations from the first two meetings between Duper and Gallagher - considered the most important talks in any drug case because deals are usually cut during the initial meetings.



Federal prosecutors H. Lloyd King Jr. and Charles S. White would not discss the jurors' concerns. 'We accept the verdict,' King said.



The government's case hinged on 16 audio and videotapes allegedly showing Duper negotiating the purchase of one kilogram of cocaine to sell in his hometown of Shreveport, LA. Prosecutors also relied on detective Parry and Gallagher, a small0time drug peddler.



Parry busted Gallagher April 14th, 1994, after he tried to buy an ounce of cocaine from another informant. Gallagher immediately offered to help the agents catch Duper, a record-setting receiver with a troubled drug past. In the '80s, Duper teamed with quarterback Dan Marino and fellow receiver Mark Clayton to form one of the most productive and feared passing combinations in the NFL.



Gallagher said he had supplied Duper with cocaine on more than 50 occasions and once discussed jointly selling a kilogram of cocaine in Lousiana. In exchange for his help, Gallagher asked the investigators to put in a good word for him with state prosecutors in his case. In court, Gallagher admitted that he had not spoked to Duper for four mother when he cold-called him to make the drug deal. During thhe next fie weeks, the tapes showed Gallagher pestering Duper and saying his drug connections would discount the cocaine. 



During closing arguments Tuesday, defense lawyers hammered at Gallagher.They called him a 'human drug-dealing machine,' who was trying to save his hide - at Duper's expense. 

​

Gallagher, 30, who admitted he was an inept dealer who lost money selling drugs- even though he kept a ledger of his transactions. But prosecutor King said this was the company Duper chose to keep. 'Who chose to hang out with Brad Gallagher? Who chose to put cocaine up his nose? [Duper} is an adult. He has responsibilities for his own actions.'

​

Several jurors said they didn't think much of Gallagher. They said he talked too much and didn't give Duper a chance to bury himself. 'He's the one who should have been on trial.' jury forewoman Virginia Mack said.

​

Defense lawyers Fred Haddad, Bruce Zimet, and Erica Massaro argued Duper never planned to sell cocaine in Louisiana. Duper planned to snort it all, they said. 'When you dangle cocaine in front of a drug addict at such an outrageously low price, he can't say no,' Zimet told jurors.

​

Jurors also said an incorrect transcription of a May 17 recording hurt the credibility of the governments case. On the government recording, Duper told Gallagher that he did not want to meet with the agents. 'If that's the way you want to rung your game, you might as well bring my money back and we'll go our separate ways.'

​

But the transcript, supplied by prosecutors, incorrectly had Duper telling Gallagher: 'If that's the way you wanna your your game, might as make things happen.'

​

Jurors also agreed the government targeted Duper even though they had no proof he had ever tried to transport cocaine. 



'He never tried to call and set up a deal,' juror Geraldine Balogh said.



This is important, jurors said, because federal law explains there is no entrapment when a 'defendant is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the defendant to commit the crime.'