KENNEDY, Circuit Judge.
Defendants Gjergj Gjieli, Nickola Lulgjuraj and Zeff Lulgjuraj appeal from their jury convictions of bribery of a public official, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3), and conspiracy to bribe a public official, 18 U.S.C. § 371. All three argued in the District Court and assert on appeal that the acts charged in the indictment and described by the evidence did not constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3) because it was not within the scope of the official authority of the bribed official to effect the object of the bribe. Second, the defendants urge reversal under the due process clause and the Court’s supervisory powers because of certain misbehavior by the government in the investigation and prosecution of the charges. We find that the defendants’ acts violated the statute. The misbehavior of the government, although serious, does not warrant dismissal of the charges. We, therefore, affirm the convictions.
I.
The transcript of the trial, including taped conversations, reveals an unusual tale. Robert Van Hengel, an agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms of the United States Treasury Department (ATF), was a regular customer at a bar in Detroit where one of the defendants, Gjergj Gjieli, was employed as a bartender. Gjieli was interested in purchasing a short wave radio set from Van Hengel. On June 11, 1980, during negotiations over the radio which Gjieli agreed to purchase, Gjieli suddenly told Van Hengel that he had $100,000 for him, plus the biggest present he had ever received. When questioned, Gjieli wrote the name “Zef [sic] Lulgjuraj” on a slip of paper and handed it to the agent. Gjieli then stated that Lulgjuraj was in the State Prison of Southern Michigan at Jackson, Michigan, (SPSM or Jackson) and that “his people” wanted him out so he could return to his homeland, Albania.1 Van Hengel warned Gjieli that such an offer to a federal agent could get him in serious trouble. Gjieli nevertheless suggested that Van Hengel might have contacts and perhaps could arrange a break-out or transportation for Lulgjuraj who could escape at some unguarded moment. Van Hengel told Gjieli that he would have to think about the matter and would contact him later.
[970]*970The next day Van Hengel reported the conversation to his supervisor in the Detroit office of ATF. On June 13, Van Hengel met with Special Agent Jim Covert of ATF Internal Affairs and a detective sergeant of the Michigan State Police. On June 16, Van Hengel met with Covert and the Michigan State Police sergeant as well as an FBI agent.2 Van Hengel was fitted with a body recorder and a radio transmitter at this meeting. A short time later Van Hengel went to the bar and engaged Gjieli in conversation which was secretly taped. Gjieli assured Van Hengel that the $100,000 would be “cash on the line.” A test run was discussed, with Van Hengel suggesting that Lulgjuraj would be “moved around a little bit to show what we can do.” Van Hengel again requested time to think over Gjieli’s proposal.
On July 10, after several weeks in which he had no contact with Gjieli, Van Hengel returned to the bar with another ATF agent. A bartender told Van Hengel that Gjieli no longer worked at the bar having quit to return to Albania with his parents. Van Hengel returned to the bar the next day to get Gjieli’s telephone number, but the bartender had not located it. On July 13, Van Hengel again went to the bar. Neither the bartender nor the owner of the bar was able to supply Gjieli’s telephone number. Efforts to locate Gjieli over the next few days proved futile.
On July 18, Van Hengel and Covert met with an Assistant United States Attorney. It was agreed that a “ruse” was needed to signal Gjieli that Van Hengel was ready to deliver.3
To effect the “ruse” the Assistant United States Attorney presented a request for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to a federal District Judge, representing that Zeff Lulgjuraj was a witness in an arson case and that he would be taken from Jackson State Prison to appear before a federal grand jury in Detroit which was investigating the arson. In fact there was no such arson investigation by a grand jury at that time, and there was no plan to take Lulgju-raj into Detroit. Unaware of the deception, the District Judge signed the writ. An ATF agent took the writ to the SPSM on July 22. The agent posed as a Deputy United States Marshal and obtained custody of Lulgjuraj for the pretended purpose of taking him before a federal grand jury. A group of ATF agents and marshals then took the prisoner to the Jackson Municipal Airport where Van Hengel was waiting in an unmarked Michigan State Police car.
Van Hengel got into the car with Lulgju-raj and initiated a conversation about “George,” the bartender at De Luca’s Bar. Lulgjuraj responded that he knew him and had last talked to him “about 5, 6 months, 5 months.” He said he knew nothing of any conversation between Van Hengel and George. Van Hengel suggested that the next time Lulgjuraj talked with Gjieli, “You tell him we had you out. This was my idea to get you here. Just tell him the guy he talked to in the bar, in De Luca’s, we had you out. Airplanes were here. OK?” When Van Hengel mentioned “the hundred thousand,” Lulgjuraj revealed no apparent knowledge of Gjieli’s offer to Van Hengel. When asked specifically if “the hundred thousand is there,” Lulgjuraj replied, “I believe so. If he told you that, that’s you know, regarding help me, something.” Lulgjuraj told Van Hengel to call his home and ask for his son Nick. The meeting ended with Lulgjuraj promising to call his son Nick to tell him to get in touch with Van Hengel either that night or the next day.
Van Hengel received a telephone call from Nick Lulgjuraj later on July 22 and returned the call the next day. After talking with Nick, Van Hengel received a call from Gjieli who said he was returning to [971]*971Detroit on July 24. Late in the afternoon of the 24th Van Hengel and another ATF agent met Gjieli and Nick Lulgjuraj at a motel in Detroit and discussed the payment of $10,000 “front money.” The same evening Gjieli and Nick delivered $10,000 in currency to the agents. Both meetings were taped on hidden recorders. By prearrangement Nick Lulgjuraj delivered $90,000 in currency to Van Hengel at a motel room in Detroit on August 5. After monitoring the meeting and determining that the delivery had been made, Agent Covert entered the room and arrested Nick Lulgjuraj. Gjieli was arrested the same day in New York.
On August 25, 1980, a federal grand jury in Detroit indicted Gjergj Gjieli, Nick Lulgjuraj and Zeff Lulgjuraj of conspiracy to bribe and bribery of a public official.4
Defendants assert that it is not a federal offense to offer or to pay a bribe to an official of the United States for the performance of an act which would violate state law but which does not violate a statute of the United States and is not a part of an official duty. Because Van Hengel had no duty with respect to the custody of a state prisoner and could not use his official position to effect the escape of Zeff Lulgju-raj the defendants contend that the statutory elements of § 201(b)(3) cannot be satisfied.5 We disagree.
Statutory Requirements of Section 201(b)(3) Violations
Title 18 U.S.C. § 201 provides in pertinent part:
(b) Whoever, directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official ... with intent—
(1) to influence any official act; or
* * * * * *
(3) to induce such public official .. . to do or omit to do any action in violation of his lawful duty;
(e) .... Shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States, (emphasis added)
The defendants in the present case were indicted and convicted of violating subsection (3) of § 201(b).
Three statutory elements must be satisfied to establish a § 201(b)(3) violation. First, the bribed individual must be a “public official” (or other person named in the statute). Second, the briber must directly or indirectly, corruptly give, offer or promise something of value to a public official. Third, in doing so, the briber must have the intent to induce the public official to act in violation of his lawful duty. 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3). The indictment and the evidence at trial set forth and established each of these elements.
A. Public official requirement
The definitional section of the statute, § 201(a), states:
[972]*972(a) For the purpose of this section:
‘public official’ means Member of Congress, the Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after he has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror; and ‘person who has been selected to be a public official’ means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that he will be so nominated or appointed; and
The indictment in this case satisfies this definition of a “public official” because Van Hengel is a regular employee of the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms, a division of the Department of Treasury.
The dissent accepts the defendants’ contention that the phrase “in any official function” in § 201(a) modifies not only persons who are “acting for or on behalf of the United States” but also “officers” and “employees.” Accordingly, because Van Hen-gel’s official function as an ATF agent did not include any authority over state prisoners, the dissent would not find Van Hengel to be a “public official” under § 201(a).
Contrary to the dissent’s view, we conclude that § 201(a) imposes no requirement that a bribed “employee” be acting in “any official function” before the “public official” requirement may be satisfied. Rather, the phrase “in any official function” was intended to modify only “person acting for or on behalf of the United States ...” and not officer or employee. Hurley v. United States, 192 F.2d 297, 299 (4th Cir.1951); Nordgren v. United States, 181 F.2d 718, 720-21 (9th Cir.1950). See also United States v. Raff, 161 F.Supp. 276, 280 n. 3 (M.D.Pa.1958).
Several considerations dictate this construction of the statute. First, unless the phrases “officer and employee” and “any persons acting for or on behalf of the United States” are read in the disjunctive, the words “officer” and “employee” are superfluous. The Fourth Circuit correctly recognized this in Hurley.
To hold otherwise would be to make the words ‘officer and employee’ completely nugatory.
* * * * * *
If Congress had intended that an officer or employee must be acting in an official function to violate § 201, why were the words ‘officer or employee’ inserted in the statute? The term ‘person acting for the United States in an official function’ is broad enough to include officers and employees. We do not believe that Congress so intended, but rather a distinction was drawn between officers or employees on the one hand, and persons acting for the United States in an official function on the other. Statutes must be interpreted as to give meaning to every portion thereof.
Hurley, 192 F.2d at 300.
Second, this reading of the statute is more consistent with the legislative purpose of preventing the corruption of a federal official. See Kemler v. United States, 133 F.2d 235, 238 (1st Cir.1942). The potential for corruption occurs when bribes are offered to federal employees with the intent that the employees use their federal office or position in an unlawful manner. For persons who are not federal employees the potential for corruption is limited to when they are acting “for or on behalf of the United States ... in any official function.”
Third, this distinction is recognized in § 201(a)’s limited legislative history:
The term “public official” [was] broadly defined to include officers and employees of the three branches of government, jurors and other persons carrying on activities for or on behalf of the Government. (emphasis added)
[973]*973S.Rep. No. 2213, 87 Cong., 2d Sess. (1962) reprinted in [1962] U.S.Code Cong. & Ad. News 3852, 3856.
Fourth, § 201(b) clearly does not provide any limitation of “official function” with respect to a “person who has been selected to be a public official.” Yet, such an individual has no authority to perform any official duties until actually appointed. It would be strange indeed that it is a crime to offer a bribe to one who has been selected for appointment but not a crime to offer the same bribe after appointment when the individual is actually an officer or employee of the government.
The dissent’s construction of § 201(a) in effect adds an element to the crime through the statutory definition of public official; that is, that the bribed federal employee has the actual authority to achieve the object of the bribe. This is a position rejected by the Second, Seventh, Fourth, Fifth and District of Columbia Circuits which have all imposed § 201 liability on bribers who erroneously perceived that the duties of a public official would give that official the authority to accomplish the desired act. United States v. Arroyo, 581 F.2d 649 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1069, 99 S.Ct. 838, 59 L.Ed.2d 34 (1978) (201(e)); United States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455, 480 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 870, 99 S.Ct. 200, 58 L.Ed.2d 182 (1978) (201(c)); United States v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 312, 332 (D.C.Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 991, 95 S.Ct. 1427, 43 L.Ed.2d 672 (1975) (201(b)); United States v. Hall, 245 F.2d 338, 339 (2d Cir.1957); United States v. Troop, 235 F.2d 123, 124-25 (7th Cir.1956) (201(b)); Wilson v. United States, 230 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 931, 76 S.Ct. 789, 100 L.Ed. 1460 (1956); Hurley, 192 F.2d at 299 (4th Cir.); United States v. Lubomski, 277 F.Supp. 713 (N.D.Ill.1967).
The defendants contend that Blunden v. United States, 169 F.2d 991 (6th Cir.1948), a case decided prior to the 1962 amendments to § 201, is dispositive of this issue. While language in Blunden does in fact support the defendants’ contentions, we are not persuaded that such language controls our construction of the present revision of § 201(b).
The 1948 revision of § 201(b) considered by the Blunden court made no clear distinctions between the alternative ways in which one could violate the statute. This and former versions of § 201, by consolidation of the operative and definitional provisions of the statute in a single sentence marked off only by commas, permitted confusion between the definitional and operative provisions.6 This is manifested in the language used in earlier eases.
Neither the Supreme Court nor the Sixth Circuit has addressed § 201(b) since amendments to this statute were made in 1962. The amendments to the statute clarify that certain provisions appearing in former versions of the statute are definitional and others operative. The terms “public official,” “person who has been selected to be a public official,” and “official act” are clearly set forth in § 201(a) as definitional provisions. In addition, the operative provisions of § 201(b)(1), (2) and (3) are now clearly set forth as three alternative means by [974]*974which the statute can be violated. Only one of these alternatives, subsection (1), requires by its terms that the bribery concern some “official act.”
The defendants in Blunden were charged under the 1948 act with the parallel of the 1962 subsection (1) violation; that is, offering things of value to a known employee of the United States “with the intent to influence his decision or action in a matter or proceeding within ... his official capacity .... ” 169 F.2d at 993. Blunden and others wished to purchase surplus motors from the Army. Flisek was the chief civilian clerk at the depot where the motors were stored. He had authority to move some motors at the depot to other posts or stations in the United States but no authority to ship surplus motors. However, he told defendants he would see that they got a preference over other buyers in the sale of the motors. Defendants agreed that Flisek would get an equal share of the profits from motors obtained through his efforts. He also arranged to secure forms and made out a false bill of lading. Later he had the transportation division of the depot ship and bill additional motors to defendants. The information charged defendants “with giving to Flisek, knowing him to be an employee of the United States of America, certain things of value with the intent to influence his decision or action in a matter or proceeding within the jurisdiction and control in his official capacity as [chief clerk].” Id. at 933. The Court held that since Flisek “lacked the authority and jurisdiction to act” in the sale of the motors the statute was not violated, even though Fli-sek’s position gave him the opportunity to ship government property illegally. The Blunden Court noted that defendants could successfully have been charged under the same section — but were not — with the intent to influence Flisek to commit a fraud on the United States. That statement makes it clear the Court was not relying on any failure to meet the public official definition because of an “official function” limitation. Such a limitation on the definition of public official would have prevented prosecution for fraud as well.
The Blunden Court was, therefore, never faced with the issue of whether the federal employee involved was a “public official” as now defined in § 201(a). Indeed, such official status appears to have been assumed. Rather, the Court dismissed the charges because the government failed to prove the offense charged. Since the employee had not been bribed to act on a matter within his official capacity, the defendants’ conviction for bribing a public official with intent to influence an official decision could not stand.
The defendants in the present case were not indicted for bribing a public official with intent “to influence an official act” within the public official’s capacity. Instead, they were indicted for bribery to induce a public official to violate his lawful duties. There is simply no requirement here that the act induced fall within the federal employee’s official function. Blun-den does not hold otherwise.
Nor is Birdsall v. United States, 233 U.S. 223, 34 S.Ct. 512, 58 L.Ed. 930 (1914), also decided before the 1962 amendments, to § 201, contrary to our construction of the present statute. Birdsall, like Blunden, is also an “official act” case which would not now be brought under § 201(b)(1).
In Birdsall, the Supreme Court addressed whether gifts made to and received by officers in the Department of Indian Affairs, for the purpose of influencing reports and recommendations to federal judges with regard to sentences of persons convicted for violating the liquor laws, constituted bribery. The then effective version of § 201, with respect to the acceptance of bribes, provided that:
[W]hoever, being an officer of the United States, or a person acting for or on behalf of the United States, in any official capacity, under or by virtue of the authority of any department or office of the government thereof, [accepts money] with the intent to have his decision or action on any question, matter, cause, or proceeding which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought [975]*975before him in his official capacity, or m his place of trust or profit, influenced thereby, [shall be punished as stated], (emphasis added)
Birdsall, 233 U.S. at 230, 34 S.Ct. at 514. Another provision, as to offering a bribe, used language similar to that quoted above in defining the official “action” of the recipient and the character of the action intended to be influenced. The bribe offering statute continued the intent requirement, as does the present version of § 201(b), with two additional types of criminal intent “[to influence him to commit . .. any fraud ... on the United States or to induce him to do or omit to do any act in violation of his lawful duty.” Id. at 230, 34 S.Ct. at 514. The indictments charged Birdsall with having given money to two officers in the Department of Indian Affairs with intent to influence their official “action,” the first of the three types of criminal intent under the then effective version of § 201. The federal officers were charged with receiving money from Birdsall with the intent that their official “action” should thus be influenced. The Supreme Court in Birdsall clearly relied on the criminal intent alternative in what is now § 201(b)(1) with respect to Birdsall and § 201(c)(1) with respect to the two federal officers. It repeatedly referred to “action” in the body of the opinion. In addition, the indictment only charged the defendants with the “action” alternative of criminal intent. In the then effective version of § 201, “action” was not preceded by a qualifying term “official” as it is now. The present version of § 201(b)(1) and 201(c)(1) substitutes the term “official act.” The Supreme Court in Birdsall read the then effective version of § 201 to require that “action” be qualified by the implied term “official.” Id. at 230, 34 S.Ct. at 514 (“[E]very action that is within the range of official duty comes within the purview of these sections.”), Id., at 235, 34 S.Ct. at 516 (“in determining the scope of official action regard must be had to the authority conferred ... ”). The Court went on to conclude that “official action” need not be proscribed by statute, but may include a requirement of the department for which the public official is acting and may be evidenced by establishing usage as well as written rules and regulations. Id. at 231, 34 S.Ct. at 514.
The Supreme Court’s judicial qualification of “action” as “official action” was codified in subsequent versions of § 201 in the language “official act,” and is presently found in § 201(b)(1), as defined in § 201(a) (“official act”). The end result of Birdsall was that the Court held that the reports and recommendations made by the federal officers were “official actions,” within the meaning of the first of the alternative intent provisions of the then effective § 201, even though the reports and recommendations were not required by statute. Id., at 229, 34 S.Ct. at 514. Birdsall, therefore, did not resolve the question of statutory construction presented in the instant case and is not controlling.
B. The requirement of a promise, gift or offer of something of value to a public official
The indictment alleged that defendants gave $100,000 to Van Hengel. This second requirement is clearly satisfied and is not an issue in this case.
C. Intent to induce the public official to act in violation of his lawful duty
The third requirement for a § 201(b)(3) violation is that the briber have the intent to induce the public official to act in violation of his lawful duty.
1. Intent: Van Hengel was approached by the defendants because he was a government employee and because they erroneously perceived that he had the power to effect the release of Zeff Lulgjuraj from state prison as a result of that status. Although erroneous, defendants’ beliefs satisfy the intent requirement of § 201(b)(3). This provision encompasses both an intent to induce acts which are part of a public official’s lawful duties and those acts which are erroneously perceived by the briber to be part of the public official’s lawful duties.
[976]*976In Blunden this Court held that a § 201(b) violation may not be found where the bribed public official has no actual authority to compel the desired result. The defendants urge that this holding construes § 201(b)(3) to require that the bribe giver’s intent to corrupt be based on a correct perception of the public official’s authority. We disagree. As discussed in the previous section of this opinion, the only consideration before the Blunden court was whether the defendants had, under what would now be § 201(b)(1), corrupted a public official in the performance of an official act.7 The Sixth Circuit retreated from any contrary implication drawn from the holding of Blunden in a subsequent opinion written by Blunden’s author.
In Krogmann v. United States, 225 F.2d 220, 225 (6th Cir.1955) the Court held that § 201 was applicable where the advice and recommendation of a public official would be influential even though the public official did not have the authority to make the final decision. Indeed, Krogmann explicitly recognized that it was the intent of the briber which was controlling. The defendant in Krogmann claimed that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the defendant public official had authority over the property which was to be sold as surplus. After reviewing the evidence, the Court explained that the briber’s intent to corrupt and not achievement of the desired result was the controlling consideration:
In addition, the offense charged was complete upon the payment of the money to [the bribee] with the intent to influence his action with respect to the sale of surplus property. The evidence was sufficient to show that appellants were interested in the surplus property at Oak Ridge and made the payments for the purpose of influencing [the bribee’s] action with respect to such property. Whether the attempt was successful or what the officer did in attempting to perform his side of the bargain are accordingly immaterial. Wolf v. United States, 6 Cir., 292 F. 673, 675; Curtis v. State, 113 Ohio St. 187, 191, 148 N.E. 834; Underhill on Criminal Evidence, 4th Edition, Sec. 715.
In light of Krogmann, the absence of any reasoned analysis on the issue in Blunden and the 1962 amendments to the statute, we believe we are free to consider this issue now.
Congress enacted § 201(b) to provide a broad deterrent against attempted corruption of public officials by means of bribes. The focus of this section is upon the briber’s intent to corrupt, not upon prevention, per se, of the briber’s ultimate ends, or upon the bribed individual’s ability to effect a result. Because the briber’s intent is controlling, it is irrelevant whether that intent was correctly formulated. To limit § 201(b)(3) in the manner suggested by the defendants would excuse bribers of public officials who fully intended to gain an advantage by making a corrupt offer to a public official but were mistaken in their impression of what the public official could lawfully do.8 The deterrent value of punishing the bad intent of bribers is the same regardless of whether or not the acts to be accomplished are within the scope of the actual lawful duties of the bribed public official and regardless of whether the briber has correctly perceived the precise scope of the official’s lawful duties.
For these reasons we choose to follow the reasoning of the Second, Seventh, Fourth, Fifth and District of Columbia Circuits, all of which have imposed § 201 liability on bribers who erroneously perceived that the bribed public official had the authority to [977]*977accomplish the desired act. United States v. Arroyo, 581 F.2d 649 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1069, 99 S.Ct. 838, 59 L.Ed.2d 34 (1978) (201(c)); United States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455, 480 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 870, 99 S.Ct. 200, 58 L.Ed.2d 182 (1978) (201(c)); United States v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 312, 332 (D.C.Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 991, 95 S.Ct. 1427, 43 L.Ed.2d 672 (1975) (201(b)); United States v. Hall, 245 F.2d 338, 338-339 (2d Cir.1957); United States v. Troop, 235 F.2d 123, 124-25 (7th Cir.1956) (201(b)); Wilson v. United States, 230 F.2d 521 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 931, 76 S.Ct. 789, 100 L.Ed. 1460 (1956); Hurley, supra, (4th Cir.); United States v. Lubomski, 277 F.Supp. 713 (N.D.Ill.1967).
2. Lawful duties: Van Hengel was given $100,000 by defendants to effect the escape of Zeff Lulgjuraj from state prison, an act that would constitute a violation of Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 750.1.
In Birdsall v. United States, 233 U.S. 223, 34 S.Ct. 512, 58 L.Ed. 930 (1914), the Supreme Court stated that lawful duties and official acts extend beyond those imposed by statute to include duties and acts imposed by written rules and regulations. Id. at 231, 34 S.Ct. at 514.
The violation of this Michigan criminal law by Van Hengel would constitute a violation of his lawful duties not to engage in criminal conduct, 31 C.F.R. §§ 0.735-56, 0.735-30(f), and to uphold the laws of all governments within the United States, 28 C.F.R. § 45-735 (Appendix — Code of Ethics for Government Service, ¶ 2). The regulations authorize disciplinary sanctions against employees who violate them — sanctions which affect their employment.
The indictment in this case satisfied all of the requirements imposed by the plain language of the present version of § 201(b)(3).
II. Supervisory Powers and Due Process Violation:
All these defendants assert that their convictions should be barred under due process principles or in the exercise of this Court’s supervisory powers because of the nature and extent of the involvement of the government in the bribe scheme.9
In particular, defendants urge that the conduct of the Assistant United States Attorney in deceiving the United States District Judge and the ATF agents in impersonating a United States Marshal before Michigan prison authorities as well as certain remarks of the prosecutor before the grand jury were so outrageous as to require reversal.
This Court’s inherent power to supervise the administration of criminal justice, McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 340, 63 S.Ct. 608, 612, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943), permits it to “formulate procedural rules not specifically required by the Constitution or by Congress.” United States v. Hasting, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1978, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983). The exercise of such supervisory powers serves three basic purposes.
[1] [T]o implement a remedy for violation of recognized rights, McNabb, supra, 318 U.S. at 340, 63 S.Ct. at , 612; Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214, 217, 76 S.Ct. 292, 294, 100 L.Ed. 233 (1956);
[2] To preserve judicial integrity by ensuring that a conviction rests on appropriate considerations validly before the jury, McNabb, supra, 318 U.S. at 345, 63 S.Ct. at 615; Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 222, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 1446, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960);
[3] And finally, as a remedy designed to deter illegal conduct, United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 735-36 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. 2439, 2446 n. 8, 65 L.Ed.2d 468 (1980).
Id. at —, 103 S.Ct. at 1978. Accordingly, the federal court’s supervisory powers include the authority to remedy and deter [978]*978serious misconduct by the government in the investigation and prosecution of a criminal defendant.10 Reversals of convictions under a court’s supervisory power, however, must be approached “with some caution.” United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 734, 100 S.Ct. 2439, 2445, 65 L.Ed.2d 468 (1980).
In Hasting and Payner, the Court reviewed attempts by lower courts to exclude evidence and reverse convictions using supervisory powers. On both occasions the Court held that the courts of appeals should not have reversed the conviction. In Pay-ner, key evidence against defendant was seized by the government in an illegal search of a third person’s briefcase. Government agents broke into a locked briefcase and stole records. Defendant urged that although the illegal search did not violate his personal fourth amendment rights, the Federal District Court was required to exercise its supervisory powers to suppress the evidence against him which was tainted by the theft of the records in order to deter similar misconduct in the future and prevent the judicial system from tacitly acquiescing in such behavior. The Supreme Court disagreed finding the use of supervisory powers unauthorized where the illegal conduct did not violate the defendant’s personal constitutional rights. Payner, 447 U.S. at 734-35 n. 7, 736 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. at 2445 n. 7, 2446 n. 8. See also, Id., at 737 n. 9, 100 S.Ct. at 2447 n. 9. In Hasting, the Seventh Circuit had held that the prosecutor violated defendants’ fifth amendment right to remain silent when in summation he commented on their failure to submit a defense. The Supreme Court rejected the use of supervisory powers to set aside the convictions (and remand for retrial). Reversal of otherwise valid convictions, the Court reasoned, was an improper method of punishing the prosecutor or deterring further misconduct. The Hasting Court found overwhelming evidence of guilt and concluded that any error occasioned by the prosecutor’s argument was harmless.
The Hasting Court supplied guidelines for the future use of supervisory powers to reverse a conviction.
Supervisory power to reverse a conviction is not needed as a remedy when the error to which it is addressed is harmless since by definition, the conviction would have been obtained notwithstanding the asserted error. Further, in this context, the integrity of the process carries less weight, for it is the essence of the harmless error doctrine that a judgment may stand only when there is no ‘reasonable possibility that the [practice] complained of might have contributed to the conviction.’ Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 [84 S.Ct. 229, 230, 11 L.Ed.2d 171] (1963). Finally, deterrence is an inappropriate basis for reversal where, as here, the prosecutor’s remark is at most an attenuated violation of Griffin, and where means more narrowly tailored to deter objectionable prosecutorial conduct are available.
Hasting, — U.S. at —, 103 S.Ct. at 1978.
The Hasting Court emphasized that supervisory powers should be utilized only where more narrowly tailored means for remedying the violation and deterring future conduct would prove sufficient. Examples given by the Hasting Court included directing the wrongdoer to show cause why he should not be disciplined, asking the Department of Justice to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a prosecutor if he or she was the offender, or publically chastising the wrongdoer by identifying him or her in the Court’s opinion. Hasting, — U.S. at — n. 5, 103 S.Ct. at 1979 n. 5.
Prerequisite then to reversing a conviction under the supervisory powers, (1) there must be a constitutional injury which is personal to the complaining defendant, (2) the injury must “harm” the defendant in [979]*979a legally significant way, (3) there must be an injury to the judicial system, (4) the “remedy" selected by the Court to preserve judicial integrity and deter future misconduct may not exceed established limitations on the court’s power, and (5) the remedy selected must be narrowly tailored.
Mindful of the Court’s admonitions in Hasting and Payner we decline to reverse the defendants’ convictions. None of the governmental activity with respect to the writ of habeas corpus incident violated any protected right of the defendants. Payner, 447 U.S. at 737, n. 9, 100 S.Ct. at 2447, n. 9. Although the prosecutor’s actions in obtaining the bogus writ constituted a fraud on the federal judicial system, that fraud, if it did not entrap Zeff Lulgjuraj, was in its effect on defendants’ convictions harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Zeff Lulgjuraj testified at trial, and at no time did he assert entrapment. Although the other defendants did claim entrapment they were not directly involved in the improper removal of Zeff Lulgjuraj from a prison.
The most serious misconduct here was that of the prosecutor. The ATF agent who posed as a marshal was doing so under the prosecutor’s aegis. His future conduct may be deterred by use of all of the sanctions given as examples by the Supreme Court in Hasting. Indeed, the District Court held a hearing on why he should not be held in contempt. It concluded that the prosecutor understood what he had done was wrong, that there were mitigating circumstances and that if the District Judge who had been deceived would accept an apology for the misconduct, no further action would be taken. Although we might well have imposed a harsher sanction we do not believe the District Court abused its discretion.11
Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.