Entrapment - Revision history

Ibjadmin: /* Footnotes */

2010-11-12T13:40:17Z

Footnotes

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:40, 12 November 2010
Line 30:		Line 30:
	See [[Defenses]]		See [[Defenses]]

	==~~Footnotes~~==		==Notes==
	<references/>		<references/>

Ibjadmin: /* Footnotes */

2010-11-12T13:40:08Z

Footnotes

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:40, 12 November 2010
Line 26:		Line 26:

	In nearly all states employing the objective test, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the government agent objectively induced the criminal behavior.<ref>http://law.jrank.org/pages/1091/Entrapment-two-approaches-entrapment.html</ref> Some examples of improper government action supporting the entrapment defense include excessive financial inducement, sexual favors given to the accused and exploitation of emotional problems of the accused. Such actions are objectively seen as the government going too far in creating crime rather than in detecting it.		In nearly all states employing the objective test, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the government agent objectively induced the criminal behavior.<ref>http://law.jrank.org/pages/1091/Entrapment-two-approaches-entrapment.html</ref> Some examples of improper government action supporting the entrapment defense include excessive financial inducement, sexual favors given to the accused and exploitation of emotional problems of the accused. Such actions are objectively seen as the government going too far in creating crime rather than in detecting it.

			----
			See [[Defenses]]

	==Footnotes==		==Footnotes==
	<references/>		<references/>

	~~----~~

	~~See [[Defenses]]~~

Ibjadmin at 16:21, 10 November 2010

2010-11-10T16:21:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 10 November 2010
Line 23:		Line 23:
	===The Objective Test===		===The Objective Test===

	Under the objective test, the predisposition of the accused does not come in to play. The objective test for entrapment, supported by the Model Penal Code, instead asks whether the government agent is "employing methods of persuasion or inducement which create a substantial risk that such an offense will be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it."<ref>ALI Model Penal Code 2.13 (1962)</ref>		Under the objective test, the predisposition of the accused does not come in to play. The objective test for entrapment, supported by the Model Penal Code, instead asks whether the government agent is "employing methods of persuasion or inducement which create a substantial risk that such an offense will be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it."<ref>ALI Model Penal Code § 2.13 (1962)</ref>

	In nearly all states employing the objective test, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the government agent objectively induced the criminal behavior.<ref>http://law.jrank.org/pages/1091/Entrapment-two-approaches-entrapment.html</ref> Some examples of improper government action supporting the entrapment defense include excessive financial inducement, sexual favors given to the accused and exploitation of emotional problems of the accused. Such actions are objectively seen as the government going too far in creating crime rather than in detecting it.		In nearly all states employing the objective test, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the government agent objectively induced the criminal behavior.<ref>http://law.jrank.org/pages/1091/Entrapment-two-approaches-entrapment.html</ref> Some examples of improper government action supporting the entrapment defense include excessive financial inducement, sexual favors given to the accused and exploitation of emotional problems of the accused. Such actions are objectively seen as the government going too far in creating crime rather than in detecting it.

Jbraun at 08:44, 19 October 2010

2010-10-19T08:44:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:44, 19 October 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Entrapment is a defense when the government (through law enforcement officers or otherwise) induces a person to commit a crime and then tries to punish the person who committed it. There are currently two tests to determine whether entrapment exists.		==Background==

	* '''Subjective Approach''' - This test has been adopted by Federal Courts and 2/3rds of ~~state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court outlined~~ the ~~parameters of this test in Sherman v~~. ~~United States~~, ~~356 U.S. 369 (1958) and Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435(1932)~~. The ~~test has two parts:~~		In criminal law, entrapment consists of a government agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. In many jurisdictions, entrapment serves as a possible defense to criminal liability. The rationale underlying the entrapment defense is that it serves as a deterrent to government agents from targeting innocent civilians by using reprehensible policing tactics, which induce those persons to engage in criminal activity.
	~~#Was~~ the ~~offense induced by~~ a government ~~agent?~~
	~~#Whether the defendant was predisposed~~ to ~~commit the crime prior to the initial contact by the government~~.

	~~Under this test~~, ~~even if~~ the ~~defendant presents sufficient evidence of~~ entrapment, if a ~~judge or jury believes that~~ the ~~suspect was predisposed or likely~~ to commit the crime ~~anyway,~~ the ~~suspect can still be found guilty despite~~ the ~~evidence that a~~ government agent ~~suggested the crime and helped the defendant~~ to ~~commit it~~.		No entrapment defense is possible, however, when a person is ready and willing to break the law, and the law enforcement officer merely provides what appears to be a favorable opportunity to do so. For an entrapment defense to succeed, the evidence must leave a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime but for the inducement or persuasion of the government agent. As a result, entrapment defenses are difficult to mount for defendants with prior related convictions.

	* '''Objective Approach''' - Supported by the Model Penal Code, the so-called "objective approach" asks whether the crime was induced by "employing methods of persuasion or inducement which create a substantial risk that such an offense will be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it." ALI Model Penal Code 2.13 Section (1962)		==United States==

	~~Additionally, the~~ entrapment defense ~~is not available if a police officer merely provides~~ the ~~opportunity for the commission of a crime by one otherwise ready and willing~~ to ~~commit it~~. ~~For example~~, ~~if an undercover police officer poses as~~ a ~~drug addict and a defendant sells~~ the ~~officer drugs, the seller does not have an entrapment defense. The officer merely provided an opportunity~~ for the ~~defendant to commit a~~ crime~~. On~~ the ~~other hand~~, ~~in situations where a~~ government agent ~~planted~~ the ~~idea of~~ a ~~crime in an innocent person's mind~~ and ~~induced or coerced~~ the ~~person~~ to ~~commit~~ the crime, ~~an entrapment defense is a viable option~~.		The entrapment defense in the United States has evolved mainly through case law as opposed to statutory provision. Generally, three actions must occur for a person to be entrapped into action: (1) the idea for committing the crime came from the government agent and not the accused, (2) the government agent persuaded the accused into committing the crime and did not provide a mere opportunity to act, and (3) the accused was not predisposed to committing the crime before interacting with the government agents.<ref>See, e.g., http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm</ref>

	The entrapment defense is difficult and not generally ~~successful (especially~~ if the defendant ~~has~~ prior ~~convictions~~ for the ~~same type~~ of crime). If the defendant ~~does~~ in ~~fact have such~~ a ~~history~~ of prior ~~convictions~~, entrapment is a ~~risky defense because~~ the ~~jury will hear about~~ the defendant~~'s past~~ criminal behavior ~~which will likely be very prejudicial~~.		Two distinct tests exist in the U.S. courts for determining whether entrapment has taken place: the subjective test and the objective test. Under the subjective test, the court looks at the defendant's state of mind, and entrapment can only be claimed if it is determined that the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime. The objective test, by comparison, looks instead at the government agent's conduct, and entrapment occurs only when the government agent caused an objectively law-abiding person to commit a crime.<ref>http://law.jrank.org/pages/1091/Entrapment-two-approaches-entrapment.html</ref>

			Under either test, the entrapment defense is a difficult one to prove and does not generally succeed. Additionally, employing an entrapment defense is risky because the jury will hear about the defendant's past criminal behavior, if any, which might prejudice the jury. Entrapment is not a constitutionally required defense and states are therefore not bound to provide for it as a defense in their criminal codes.<ref>http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/entrapment</ref>

			===The Subjective Test===

			U.S. Federal courts and approximately two-thirds of the State courts have adopted the subjective test for entrapment. The key consideration in the subjective test is the state of mind of the accused. In order to sustain an entrapment defense, the accused must first show that the government agent induced him to commit the charged offense. The burden of proof then shifts to the government to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime prior to the time of the government contact.<ref>http://law.jrank.org/pages/1091/Entrapment-two-approaches-entrapment.html</ref>

			The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the subjective test for entrapment in Sherman v. United States, wherein the Court overturned the conviction of a recovering drug addict who had been repeatedly solicited for drug sales by a former addict working with the government. Focusing on the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime of selling illegal narcotics, the Court noted his criminal history but took into account his attempts to rehabilitate himself and the time elapsed since his last infraction in concluding that he was not predisposed to commit the charged crime. In defining entrapment, the Court said, "a line must be drawn between the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal.<ref>Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 375 (1958) (following the entrapment doctrine laid out in Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932)), available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=356&invol=369</ref>

			Normally the question of disposition is reserved for the jury, but in cases where the judge finds that no juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to the criminal activity, the judge will establish entrapment as a matter of law and terminate the prosecution. A recent example of entrapment as a matter of law was shown in Jacobson v. United States, which overturned the conviction of a man charged with the crime of receiving child pornography through an undercover government sting operation. The opinion focused solely on the defendant's predisposition to commit the charged crime, ultimately exonerating the defendant because no other illicit material was found in his home after arrest, the defendant engaged in no prior illegal activity, and it took nearly two years of inducement before he acted in an illegal manner.<ref>Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992), available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0503_0540_ZD.html</ref> The subjective versus objective test discussion was noticeably absent from the Jacobson opinion, indicating that the distinction might not be material to future entrapment decisions.

			===The Objective Test===

			Under the objective test, the predisposition of the accused does not come in to play. The objective test for entrapment, supported by the Model Penal Code, instead asks whether the government agent is "employing methods of persuasion or inducement which create a

			In nearly all states employing the objective test, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the government agent objectively induced the criminal behavior.<ref>http://law.jrank.org/pages/1091/Entrapment-two-approaches-entrapment.html</ref> Some examples of improper government action supporting the entrapment defense include excessive financial inducement, sexual favors given to the accused and exploitation of emotional problems of the accused. Such actions are objectively seen as the government going too far in creating crime rather than in detecting it.

			==Footnotes==
			<references/>

			----

	See [[Defenses]]		See [[Defenses]]

Ibjadmin: /* Defenses */

2010-06-08T20:13:28Z

Defenses

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 8 June 2010
Line 13:		Line 13:
	The entrapment defense is difficult and not generally successful (especially if the defendant has prior convictions for the same type of crime). If the defendant does in fact have such a history of prior convictions, entrapment is a risky defense because the jury will hear about the defendant's past criminal behavior which will likely be very prejudicial.		The entrapment defense is difficult and not generally successful (especially if the defendant has prior convictions for the same type of crime). If the defendant does in fact have such a history of prior convictions, entrapment is a risky defense because the jury will hear about the defendant's past criminal behavior which will likely be very prejudicial.

	~~== Defenses ==~~		See [[Defenses]]

	~~'''Table of Contents'''~~

	~~===Procedural Defenses===~~
	* [[Double jeopardy]]
	*[[ Statutory Limitation]]
	*[[ Lack of jurisdiction]]
	* [[Entrapment]]
	* [[~~Procedural defects]]~~
	* [[Motion to suppress]]
	*[[ Immunity and Public Authority]]

	~~===Normal~~ Defenses~~===~~
	* [[Self-Defense]]
	* [[Defense of others]]
	* [[Defense of property]]
	* [[Mental Incapacity]]
	* [[Alibi]]
	* [[Necessity]]
	* [[Duress]]
	* [[Physical Impossibility]]
	* [[Mistake of Law]]
	* [[Mistake of Fact]]
	* [[Mistake of identity]]
	* [[Consent]]
	* [[Lack of intent]]
	* [[Maltreated Women Syndrome]]
	*[[ Intoxication]]
	* [[Criminal act with Sincere Intent]]

Ibjadmin at 20:57, 3 June 2010

2010-06-03T20:57:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:57, 3 June 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Entrapment is a defense when the government (through law enforcement officers or otherwise) induces a person to commit a crime and then tries to punish the person who committed it. There are currently two tests to determine whether entrapment exists.		Entrapment is a defense when the government (through law enforcement officers or otherwise) induces a person to commit a crime and then tries to punish the person who committed it. There are currently two tests to determine whether entrapment exists.

	* '''Subjective Approach''' - This test has been adopted by ~~federal courts~~ and 2/3rds of state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court outlined the parameters of this test in Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958) and Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435(1932). The test has two parts:		* '''Subjective Approach''' - This test has been adopted by Federal Courts and 2/3rds of state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court outlined the parameters of this test in Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958) and Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435(1932). The test has two parts:
	#Was the offense induced by a government agent?		#Was the offense induced by a government agent?
	#Whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime prior to the initial contact by the government.		#Whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime prior to the initial contact by the government.

Ibjadmin at 20:56, 3 June 2010

2010-06-03T20:56:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:56, 3 June 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Entrapment is a defense when the government (through law enforcement officers or otherwise) induces a person to commit a crime and then tries to punish the person who committed it. ~~The defense consists of~~ two ~~elements:~~		Entrapment is a defense when the government (through law enforcement officers or otherwise) induces a person to commit a crime and then tries to punish the person who committed it. There are currently two tests to determine whether entrapment exists.

	* the ~~criminal design must have originated with law enforcement officers~~ (~~not a private citizen~~); and		* '''Subjective Approach''' - This test has been adopted by federal courts and 2/3rds of state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court outlined the parameters of this test in Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958) and Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435(1932). The test has two parts:
	* the defendant ~~must not have been~~ predisposed to commit the crime prior to the initial contact by the government.		#Was the offense induced by a government agent?
			#Whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime prior to the initial contact by the government.

	~~Thus~~, even if the defendant presents sufficient evidence of entrapment, if a judge or jury believes that the suspect was predisposed or likely to commit the crime anyway, the suspect can still be found guilty despite the evidence that a government agent suggested the crime and helped the defendant to commit it.		Under this test, even if the defendant presents sufficient evidence of entrapment, if a judge or jury believes that the suspect was predisposed or likely to commit the crime anyway, the suspect can still be found guilty despite the evidence that a government agent suggested the crime and helped the defendant to commit it.

			* '''Objective Approach''' - Supported by the Model Penal Code, the so-called "objective approach" asks whether the crime was induced by "employing methods of persuasion or inducement which create a substantial risk that such an offense will be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it." ALI Model Penal Code 2.13 Section (1962)

	Additionally, the entrapment defense is not available if a police officer merely provides the opportunity for the commission of a crime by one otherwise ready and willing to commit it. For example, if an undercover police officer poses as a drug addict and a defendant sells the officer drugs, the seller does not have an entrapment defense. The officer merely provided an opportunity for the defendant to commit a crime. On the other hand, in situations where a government agent planted the idea of a crime in an innocent person's mind and induced or coerced the person to commit the crime, an entrapment defense is a viable option.		Additionally, the entrapment defense is not available if a police officer merely provides the opportunity for the commission of a crime by one otherwise ready and willing to commit it. For example, if an undercover police officer poses as a drug addict and a defendant sells the officer drugs, the seller does not have an entrapment defense. The officer merely provided an opportunity for the defendant to commit a crime. On the other hand, in situations where a government agent planted the idea of a crime in an innocent person's mind and induced or coerced the person to commit the crime, an entrapment defense is a viable option.

Ddemetriou at 08:21, 31 May 2010

2010-05-31T08:21:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:21, 31 May 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:

	The entrapment defense is difficult and not generally successful (especially if the defendant has prior convictions for the same type of crime). If the defendant does in fact have such a history of prior convictions, entrapment is a risky defense because the jury will hear about the defendant's past criminal behavior which will likely be very prejudicial.		The entrapment defense is difficult and not generally successful (especially if the defendant has prior convictions for the same type of crime). If the defendant does in fact have such a history of prior convictions, entrapment is a risky defense because the jury will hear about the defendant's past criminal behavior which will likely be very prejudicial.

			== Defenses ==

			'''Table of Contents'''

			===Procedural Defenses===
			* [[Double jeopardy]]
			*[[ Statutory Limitation]]
			*[[ Lack of jurisdiction]]
			* [[Entrapment]]
			* [[Procedural defects]]
			* [[Motion to suppress]]
			*[[ Immunity and Public Authority]]

			===Normal Defenses===
			* [[Self-Defense]]
			* [[Defense of others]]
			* [[Defense of property]]
			* [[Mental Incapacity]]
			* [[Alibi]]
			* [[Necessity]]
			* [[Duress]]
			* [[Physical Impossibility]]
			* [[Mistake of Law]]
			* [[Mistake of Fact]]
			* [[Mistake of identity]]
			* [[Consent]]
			* [[Lack of intent]]
			* [[Maltreated Women Syndrome]]
			*[[ Intoxication]]
			* [[Criminal act with Sincere Intent]]

Ddemetriou at 14:46, 7 April 2010

2010-04-07T14:46:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:46, 7 April 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Entrapment is a ~~procedural~~ defense ~~under which~~ a defense ~~lawyer argues~~ that a government ~~official lured~~ the defendant ~~into committing~~ the crime		Entrapment is a defense when the government (through law enforcement officers or otherwise) induces a person to commit a crime and then tries to punish the person who committed it. The defense consists of two elements:

			* the criminal design must have originated with law enforcement officers (not a private citizen); and
			* the defendant must not have been predisposed to commit the crime prior to the initial contact by the government.

			Thus, even if the defendant presents sufficient evidence of entrapment, if a judge or jury believes that the suspect was predisposed or likely to commit the crime anyway, the suspect can still be found guilty despite the evidence that a government agent suggested the crime and helped the defendant to commit it.

			Additionally, the entrapment defense is not available if a police officer merely provides the opportunity for the commission of a crime by one otherwise ready and willing to commit it. For example, if an undercover police officer poses as a drug addict and a defendant sells the officer drugs, the seller does not have an entrapment defense. The officer merely provided an opportunity for the defendant to commit a crime. On the other hand, in situations where a government agent planted the idea of a crime in an innocent person's mind and induced or coerced the person to commit the crime, an entrapment defense is a viable option.

			The entrapment defense is difficult and not generally successful (especially if the defendant has prior convictions for the same type of crime). If the defendant does in fact have such a history of prior convictions, entrapment is a risky defense because the jury will hear about the defendant's past criminal behavior which will likely be very prejudicial.

Ddemetriou: Created page with 'Entrapment is a procedural defense under which a defense lawyer argues that a government official lured the defendant into committing the crime'

2010-04-07T10:01:44Z

Created page with 'Entrapment is a procedural defense under which a defense lawyer argues that a government official lured the defendant into committing the crime'

New page

Entrapment is a procedural defense under which a defense lawyer argues that a government official lured the defendant into committing the crime