Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Entrapment is, indeed, illegal. But when someone works with the Feds by copping plea deal in exchange for wearing a wire to record incriminating conversations, that's not at all what entrapment is.
You probably believe the line about an undercover cop having to tell you he/she is a cop when you buy drugs from them, otherwise it's entrapment. Not at all true, but a common myth made popular by the entertainment industry.
Quote:
Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that "Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.
Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government's use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort "that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties," United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government's behavior was such that "a law-abiding citizen's will to obey the law could have been overborne"); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created "a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it").
Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime." Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the requisite intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: "the ready commission of the criminal act," such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent's offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550.
Here's how entrapment actually works for federal cases.
The judge said some facts, deleted from her opinion, "establish" that the pair's denial of U.S. activity for Ukraine's Party of Regions "is false, a half-truth, or at least misleading because evidence shows that Target 1 and Target 2 were intimately involved in significant outreach in the United States on behalf of [a European think tank,] the Party of Regions and/or the Ukrainian government."
Entrapment is, indeed, illegal. But when someone works with the Feds by copping plea deal in exchange for wearing a wire to record incriminating conversations, that's not at all what entrapment is.
You probably believe the line about an undercover cop having to tell you he/she is a cop when you buy drugs from them, otherwise it's entrapment. Not at all true, but a common myth made popular by the entertainment industry.
Here's how entrapment actually works for federal cases.
No dude. That George Papa guy was trying to get Trump and his team to go to some meetings that they never went to. If they did it would have been entrapment since Trump and his team didn't approach him to set the meetings up. It was the other way around and that would have indeed been entrapment. A cop can't walk up to you in plain clothes and ask you if you want to buy drugs then arrest you for buying them. The FBI can't pose as a terrorist and approach people and ask them to go bomb something then supply them with the materials, that's also entrapment. What ISN'T entrapment is if it's the other way around and a drug user approaches and under cover and asks him for drugs, or the FBI being approached by a terrorist looking for bomb materials.
Gonna be some long tough days at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Everyone looking at everybody else and thinking "I wonder if (fill in the blank) has flipped or will flip".
No dude. That George Papa guy was trying to get Trump and his team to go to some meetings that they never went to. If they did it would have been entrapment since Trump and his team didn't approach him to set the meetings up. It was the other way around and that would have indeed been entrapment. A cop can't walk up to you in plain clothes and ask you if you want to buy drugs then arrest you for buying them. The FBI can't pose as a terrorist and approach people and ask them to go bomb something then supply them with the materials, that's also entrapment. What ISN'T entrapment is if it's the other way around and a drug user approaches and under cover and asks him for drugs, or the FBI being approached by a terrorist looking for bomb materials.
Tough job isn't it; trying to be Rumpelstiltskin and spin this straw into gold
"A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct."
I will note that some have been arguing that Mr. George P (I can't spell his last name) was a 'volunteer' with the Trump Administration, hence not 'with' the government. Note that the defense of entrapment calls for 'government' inducement.
Obviously George P wasn't 'working' for 'the government', but the harder element to prove would be the 'total lack of predisposition' aspect. Given how many people are already caught up in this mess that he's associated with, it would be exceedingly difficult for Trump to try and claim he had no intentions of colluding with Russians, if he's caught on tape talking about it and trying to arrange meetings. LOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
