Entrapment defense in criminal law

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 light was part of my patrol duties in the neighborhood known for drug activity.

The entrapment defense is not valid in this case since the defendant was already looking for the drug and would have obtained it without the involvement of the undercover officer. Similar to United States v. Russell case, the defendant was already in search of the drugs, which implies that the offer by the undercover agent did not necessarily induce the crime but provided him with the opportunity to commit the crime. As previously mentioned, entrapment is defined as an affirmative defense through which an offender is excused from liability for offenses that with clear proof that they have been induced by some governmental deceit or persuasion (Johnson, 1996).

Therefore, providing an opportunity for someone to commit crime is not similar to entrapment since the opportunity shows the existing willingness of the individual to commit a crime. As evident in Sherman v. United States case, entrapment occurs when a law enforcement agent forces or induces an individual to commit an offense that he/she is unwilling to carry out. If the substance in question was marijuana, it would have different requirements for a misdemeanor or felony charge depending on its weight. The substance would need to be less than 20 grams for a First Degree Misdemeanor and over 20 grams to be considered as a Third Degree Felony.

Intermediate Appellate Court v. High Appellate Court:

Most of the states in America have at least one intermediate appellate court with varying jurisdictions from state to state. In addition, each state also has a high appellate court whose functions are slightly different from those of the intermediate appellate court. The main difference between these courts is that intermediate appellate courts serve as a place where a party sends his/her first appeal if he/she is not satisfied with the ruling or decision of a lower court. On the contrary, high appellate courts serve as courts where many litigants obtain review of unpleasant rulings from trial courts and other administrative agencies ("The Role of State Intermediate Appellate Courts," 2012). In some cases, intermediate appellate courts are referred to as district court of appeals.

The court has two major options regarding the case, but requires thorough review and consideration of the case facts and constitutional provisions. The first option is to determine whether the entrapment defense is valid and reverse the ruling by the lower court. In this case, the court will need to prove that the defendant's criminal behavior was clearly induced by the undercover agent. The second option is to uphold the ruling of the lower court by demonstrating the invalidity of the entrapment defense by the defendant.