Entrapment Defense Term Paper

Entrapment Defense:

Case Brief One:

Sherman v. United States

Facts: An undercover agent and the defendant originally met in a healthcare facility where they were both undergoing treatment for drug addiction. The government informant ultimately asked the defendant where he could obtain drugs because of the difficulties they were experiencing in overcoming addictions. While the defendant tried to avoid the issue initially, the government informant behaved like he was suffering and continued to ask for drugs. When the defendant finally gave in to the informant's demands, he got drugs from his own supplier and handed them to the undercover agent ("Sherman v. United States," 2012). The defendant was previously convicted by a Federal district court for selling narcotics on the basis that his initial hesitance to agree to the informer's request did not indicate his reluctance to purchase the drugs.

Issue: The issue before the United States Supreme Court is whether the conviction of the defendant by a Federal District Court should be overturned on the basis of entrapment defense.

Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction by the Federal district court on the basis that informant was the product of the creative activity.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court argued that the law enforcement's function is to prevent crime and arrest criminals. Therefore, law enforcement personnel and agencies do not have the function of manufacturing crime. The facts in this case prove that the government informant did not comply with the function of law enforcement through inducing the crime. Actually, the informant tried to create the crime several times following several rejections.

Case Brief Two:

United States v. Russell

Facts: With the help of two other men and an undercover agent, Richard Russell, the Respondent, produced methamphetamine. The Respondent manufactured this product by using essential chemical i.e. propanone that was provided by the undercover agent ("United States v. Russell," n.d.). Since propanone was a key ingredient for the completion of the manufacturing process, the Respondent could acquire it without the undercover agent, but accepted the agent's proposal.The undercover agent offered to provide propanone in exchange for half of the manufactured methamphetamine. During trial, the Respondent stated that he would have manufactured the drug without help from the undercover agent. Therefore, the undercover agent provided him with an opportunity to commit a crime that he was willing to commit.

Issue: The issue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is to determine whether the conduct by government authorities should be the determining reason when examining the underlying issues of an entrapment defense instead of the defendant's conduct.

Decisions: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant's conduct instead of the conduct of any law enforcement agents is the test to determine the merits of entrapment defense. As a result, the court affirmed previous holdings in Sorrells v. United States (1932) and Sherman v. United States (1958).

Reasoning: The rationale behind the final decision is that an objective evaluation of the conduct of the government may not incorporate unique aspects of every case. The conduct of the law enforcement personnel comes to emphasis in some instances such as when permission was provided to search a premise by an individual with controlling authority.

Dissenting Opinion: The dissenting judge agreed with like-minded opinions in Sorrells and Sherman cases that argued for a more consistent and fair objective test that examined government's conduct to determine entrapment.

Evaluation of the Case:

As an undercover agent, there was probable cause to approach the defendant while he parked at the traffic light. The probable cause to make the approach was fueled by suspicion that the defendant may be involved in drug activity in this neighborhood. The suspicion for involvement in drug activity originated from the eye contact made with the man in the vehicle. Generally, approaching the defendant while he parked at the traffic….....