Entrapment

Entrapment occurs when law enforcement officers or agents induce a person to commit a crime that they would not have otherwise committed. If a defendant successfully proves entrapment, they can be acquitted of the charges. Here’s what happens in an entrapment case and some well-known examples where this defense was successfully used:

Legal Definition: Entrapment is a defense that argues the government induced the defendant to commit a crime they would not have otherwise engaged in. It is based on the premise that the government should not provoke criminal activity.

Key Elements:

1. Government Inducement: The government (typically law enforcement) induced or persuaded the defendant to commit the crime.
2. Lack of Predisposition: The defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime before the government’s inducement.

To successfully argue entrapment, the defense must establish:

1. Inducement: Showing that law enforcement agents actively persuaded or coerced the defendant into committing the crime.
2. Lack of Predisposition: Demonstrating that the defendant had no intention or prior inclination to commit the crime before the government’s involvement.

Presentation of Evidence: The defense presents evidence to prove entrapment, such as recordings, communications, and witness testimonies.

Cross-Examination: The defense cross-examines law enforcement agents to expose any coercion or undue persuasion.

Jury Decision: The jury decides whether entrapment occurred based on the evidence and arguments presented.

Implications of a Successful Entrapment Defense

If the entrapment defense is successful:

• Acquittal: The defendant is acquitted of the charges because the crime was a result of government inducement.
• Precedent: The case sets a precedent for future entrapment defenses, influencing how law enforcement conducts sting operations and undercover work.

Well-Known Examples of Successful Entrapment Defenses

Case Summary: Keith Jacobson was convicted of ordering illegal pornographic magazines through a government sting operation. Over 26 months, government agents sent Jacobson various mailings to tempt him into ordering illegal materials.

Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jacobson, stating that the government’s persistent inducement over an extended period overcame Jacobson’s initial reluctance. The Court emphasized that the government must prove that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime before the government’s involvement.

Case Summary: Richard Russell was involved in manufacturing methamphetamine. An undercover agent supplied him with an essential chemical for production. Russell argued that he was entrapped by the government.

Outcome: While the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule in Russell’s favor, the case is notable for clarifying entrapment standards. The Court acknowledged that government involvement in crime creation could be considered entrapment if it goes beyond simply providing an opportunity to commit a crime.

Case Summary: George Holliday was accused of selling marijuana to an undercover officer. Holliday argued that he was entrapped because the officer had pressured him into committing the crime.

Outcome: The court ruled in favor of Holliday, finding that the undercover officer had used undue persuasion to induce him to sell marijuana, which he would not have done otherwise.

Case Summary: Sherman was recovering from drug addiction when a government informant repeatedly asked him to obtain drugs. Sherman initially refused but eventually complied due to persistent requests.

Outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Sherman was entrapped, emphasizing that the government’s conduct in repeatedly pressuring an individual recovering from addiction constituted entrapment.

Entrapment occurs when law enforcement induces a person to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed. Successfully proving entrapment can lead to an acquittal. Well-known cases like Jacobson v. United States and Sherman v. United States highlight the importance of demonstrating both government inducement and lack of predisposition. These cases have set precedents that continue to influence the application of the entrapment defense in the legal system.