Entrapment Study Outline

Entrapment is a legal defense that argues a defendant was induced by law enforcement to commit a crime that they would not have otherwise committed. This doctrine is rooted in the notion that the government should not be involved in criminal inducement, as the ethics of law enforcement require that citizens be free from coercion into committing illegal acts. To establish an entrapment defense, a defendant typically must demonstrate two elements: (1) the government initiated the criminal activity and (2) the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime without government involvement.

The analysis of entrapment generally employs a subjective test based on the defendant's predisposition. Courts assess whether the defendant was already willing to commit the crime and whether the government's actions merely provided an opportunity. Some jurisdictions may apply an objective test, focusing on the nature of the government's actions and whether they would induce a normally law-abiding citizen to commit the crime. Thus, the subjective approach highlights the defendant's state of mind, while the objective approach scrutinizes the conduct of law enforcement.

The subjective test for entrapment is most commonly applied, which focuses primarily on the defendant’s predisposition. Factors considered include the defendant's criminal history, the timing and method of police inducement, and whether the government’s involvement created a risk of crime that would not have otherwise arisen. For a defendant to successfully argue entrapment, they must show that they were not only persuaded but also that the government’s actions were the sole reason they engaged in the criminal conduct.

In contrast, the objective test evaluates whether law enforcement actions would tempt an average person of normal resistance into committing a criminal act. This test emphasizes the conduct and actions of government agents rather than the predisposition of the defendant. Each test guides courts in discerning the fine line between permissible government undercover tactics and impermissible conduct that leads to entrapment. Conclusively, outcomes can vary significantly based on jurisdiction and specific case circumstances, requiring careful legal strategy when asserting an entrapment defense.

The landmark case of Sorrells v. United States established fundamental principles regarding entrapment and the standards for evaluating government conduct. In Sorrells, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of the defendant's predisposition and set the groundwork for later entrapment defenses. Another significant case, United States v. Russell, provided clarity on the limits of permissible police conduct and further refined the tests for entrapment, linking the defense to the broader principle of ensuring fairness within the justice system. More recent cases, such as Jacobson v. United States, reaffirmed the precedential importance of predisposition while noting that prolonged government pressure can lead to an entrapment finding, indicating a significant developmental evolution within the entrapment law framework.