What is the Entrapment Defense to Legal Charges?

Entrapment is a complex defense in U.S. law. Essentially, the defense claims that the government induced an individual to commit a crime that they were not predisposed to commit.

In U.S. federal law, entrapment occurs when:

1. The idea for committing the crime comes from the government agents, and not from the person accused of the crime

2. Government agents then persuade or talk the person into committing the crime. Simply giving them the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading them to commit the crime.

3. The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with them.

Tests for Entrapment

In the Subjective Test, which is the majority view on entrapment, the primary focus is on the defendant's state of mind. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime before the government's inducement. If they can do this, the entrapment defense fails.

Used by a minority of jurisdictions, the Objective Test emphasizes the conduct of the government agents. If their conduct was so outrageous that it would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime, then entrapment may be established. The predisposition of the defendant is irrelevant.

Police Lying During Investigations:

Merely lying or using deception doesn't automatically constitute entrapment. Police frequently employ deceptive tactics, especially in undercover operations. The key question isn't whether the government deceived the defendant, but whether the government's tactics caused the defendant to commit a crime they weren't predisposed to commit.

Important Supreme Court Opinions:

1. Sorrells v. United States (1932): This case affirmed the existence of the entrapment defense in federal law. The Court adopted the subjective test, emphasizing the defendant's predisposition. 

2. Sherman v. United States (1958): The Court reiterated its commitment to the subjective test, saying that entrapment occurs when the crime is "the product of the creative activity" of law enforcement. 

3. United States v. Russell (1973): The Court rejected the objective test, reaffirming that the focus of the entrapment defense should be on the defendant's predisposition and not on the conduct of government agents. However, the Court did hint that there might be situations where the government's involvement is so outrageous that it could violate "due process" principles. 

4. Jacobson v. United States (1992): The defendant was convicted of receiving child pornography in the mail. The Court found that he was entrapped because the government's multiple mailings over two years could have persuaded an otherwise unwilling person to commit the crime. 

State Entrapment Statutes

The entrapment defense arises from case law rather than statute at the federal level. However, some states might have specific statutory provisions regarding entrapment in their penal codes. While deception by the police can be a factor in entrapment claims, it isn't determinative. The main concern is whether government agents induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime.

Know the Laws with LegalFix

Whether you’re trying to understand concepts like entrapment defense or just want to learn more about how our legal system operates, LegalFix is your source for free legal information. You can find helpful articles and use the free search and information tools to better understand the state and federal laws that affect you. Just visit our website to find all this content — and check back often for more valuable legal products and services coming soon.