Criminal Law · Entrapment

Who Has The Burden Of Proof For Entrapment in Criminal Law?

Clear answer to: Who Has The Burden Of Proof For Entrapment in Criminal Law? with key cases, examples, and exam tips for law students.

Short Answer

The burden of proof for entrapment rests primarily with the defendant, who must establish that the government induced them to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed.

Detailed Answer

In criminal law, the defense of entrapment occurs when law enforcement forces an individual to commit a crime that they would not have otherwise committed. The burden of proof typically lies with the defendant to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were entrapped. This defense highlights a significant concern regarding the proper limits of law enforcement conduct in pursuit of crime prevention.

To establish entrapment, the defendant must demonstrate two key elements: first, that the government agent induced the individual to commit the illegal act, and second, that the individual was not predisposed to commit that crime. The courts require defendants to articulate and substantiate these claims using evidence, often based on how the police interacted with the accused. The mere fact that the defendant committed the crime after law enforcement involvement does not suffice to establish entrapment.

Judicial interpretations can vary, and some jurisdictions may impose different burdens based on the specific circumstances. In some states, particularly those that favor a subjective test of entrapment, the burden might shift slightly depending on varying standards of proof that are used during the proceedings. Nevertheless, the defendant remains primarily responsible for demonstrating that they were subjected to improper inducement.

Key Cases
  • 1Sorrells v. United States (1932) - Established that entrapment is a valid defense when law enforcement induces an unwary person to commit a crime.
  • 2Jacobson v. United States (1992) - Clarified that the government cannot instigate a crime in someone who is not predisposed to engage in that activity.
  • 3United States v. Russell (1973) - Determined that entrapment is a valid defense if the criminal act would not have been committed but for the government’s involvement.
Practical Example

A person who has never sold drugs is approached by an undercover officer who persistently pressures them to sell drugs. After much coercion, the individual agrees and sells a small amount. In this scenario, the individual may argue entrapment, claiming they were induced by law enforcement to commit a crime they would not have committed independently.

Exam Relevance

Questions on entrapment often examine the nuances of the burden of proof and the criteria necessary to establish this defense, making it a frequent topic in criminal law exams.

Get Answers to All Your Legal Questions

Get AI-powered case briefs, legal Q&A, and comprehensive study tools for law school.