Criminal Procedure
Bishop v. United States, 412 U.S. 346 (1969)
Study notes for Bishop v. United States: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Entrapment occurs when government agents induce a defendant to commit a crime they were not predisposed to commit.
Bishop v. United States showcases the critical issue of entrapment in criminal law, emphasizing the balance between law enforcement's role in combating crime and the protection of citizens from undue governmental influence. Professors will likely highlight how the persistent solicitation by the government informant led to Bishop's eventual decision to sell narcotics, raising questions about his predisposition to commit the crime absent such inducement. This case illustrates the subjective nature of entrapment, focusing on whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime before government intervention.
Furthermore, a key takeaway from the ruling is that law enforcement's methods must not cross ethical lines, especially when such tactics lead individuals to commit crimes they would not have otherwise engaged in. The court's decision serves as a precedent that protects individuals against overreaching governmental pressure, reinforcing the belief that anti-drug measures should not compromise the integrity of the legal system.
Persistent solicitation leads to entrapment.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Sorrells v. United States | While Sorrells involved government inducement, it focused on the subjective nature of predisposition more than persistent solicitation. |
| Jacobson v. United States | In Jacobson, the defendant was found not guilty because he was not predisposed to commit the crime at the time, highlighting that predisposition is essential regardless of solicitation. |
| United States v. Russell | Russell involved a scenario where the defendant was willing to commit the crime before governmental involvement, contrasting with Bishop's lack of predisposition. |
The rule serves to protect individuals from coercive government tactics that could lead to unjust convictions for crimes they would not otherwise commit.
Critics argue that it may hinder effective law enforcement strategies aimed at apprehending those engaged in unlawful activities, potentially allowing crime to flourish.
This case often appears on exams as an example of the entrapment defense, with students expected to analyze the interplay between governmental conduct and the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime.