Categories: Court Info

The Entrapment Defense: Protecting the Unwary Innocent

META: The Entrapment Defense

The entrapment defense is a fundamental safeguard in criminal law, designed to prevent government agents from manufacturing crimes and coercing otherwise law-abiding citizens into unlawful acts. This post dissects the two crucial elements of this affirmative defense—government inducement and the defendant’s lack of predisposition—explaining the difference between simply affording an opportunity and outright criminal creation. Learn about the subjective and objective tests and landmark Supreme Court cases that define the boundaries of police conduct in sting operations, providing a vital framework for understanding your constitutional rights when facing federal or state criminal charges.

Introduction: The Principle of Manufactured Crime

The concept of entrapment is rooted in the idea of governmental fairness. At its core, the defense argues that a person should not be prosecuted for a crime that was not their own idea, but rather the product of a creative effort by law enforcement officials. While it is entirely proper for law enforcement to use artifice, undercover agents, and sting operations to catch individuals already predisposed to criminal conduct, it is fundamentally prohibited for the government to “implant in an innocent person’s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime”.

This is a critical distinction in criminal jurisprudence. The law recognizes that simply affording someone an opportunity to commit a crime is acceptable police conduct. However, when the police cross the line and actively coerce or persuade an otherwise unwilling person to commit a criminal offense, the defense of entrapment may apply, serving as a complete bar to conviction.

The Dual Elements of the Entrapment Defense

In most federal jurisdictions, entrapment is analyzed using the Subjective Test, an affirmative defense that requires the defendant to prove two essential elements:

Government Inducement of the Crime: The defendant must show that a government agent (including informants acting on the government’s behalf) persuaded, pressured, or threatened them into committing the crime.
The Defendant’s Lack of Predisposition: The government, once inducement is shown, must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was already “ready and willing” to commit the crime whenever the opportunity arose, prior to the government’s involvement.

Inducement vs. Opportunity: Mere solicitation or the provision of facilities (like giving money for a drug purchase) is not considered inducement. Inducement requires a showing of excessive pressure, pleas based on sympathy or friendship, or extraordinary promises that would blind an ordinary person to their legal duties.

Focusing on Predisposition: The Crucial Factor

Of the two elements, a lack of predisposition is the most challenging for a defendant to prove, and it is the element that most often defeats the entrapment defense. Predisposition focuses on the defendant’s state of mind before the government’s intervention. Evidence used to determine predisposition includes:

The defendant’s prior criminal involvement in similar acts.
A demonstrated desire for profit or eagerness to participate.
The defendant’s ready commission of the criminal act, which itself may establish predisposition.
The defendant’s specialized knowledge or experience in the criminal activity under investigation.

💡 Legal Expert Tip

In the federal system, raising the entrapment defense often requires the defendant to essentially admit to the elements of the crime, then argue for acquittal based on the government’s unconstitutional conduct. This strategic move highlights the complex and often contradictory nature of this affirmative defense. Consult with a skilled Legal Expert to navigate this difficult legal choice.

The Two Major Legal Tests: Subjective vs. Objective

While the federal system primarily uses the Subjective Test, some states employ an alternative standard:

1. The Subjective Test (Federal and Majority Approach)

As detailed above, this test focuses on the defendant’s state of mind. The question is: Was the defendant an “unwary innocent” who was corrupted by the government, or an “unwary criminal” who merely took advantage of the opportunity?.

Landmark Case: Jacobson v. United States (1992)

Case Brief: Manufactured Predisposition

In the *Jacobson* case, the defendant was targeted over a 26-month period with repeated mailings and communications from government agents that ultimately induced him to order child pornography. The U.S. Supreme Court found entrapment as a matter of law, concluding that the government had failed to prove that the defendant’s willingness to commit the crime was not itself manufactured by the government’s protracted and persistent tactics. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove predisposition existed before the government contact, not merely that the defendant was willing after being pressured.

2. The Objective Test (Minority Approach)

In jurisdictions utilizing the Objective Test (e.g., California), the focus shifts away from the defendant’s character and predisposition. Instead, the inquiry is entirely on the conduct of the law enforcement agents. The core question becomes: Would the conduct of the government agent be “likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense?”.

Caution: Outrageous Government Conduct

Even when a defendant is predisposed to commit a crime, they may still argue for dismissal based on a separate, but related, defense: the violation of Due Process via “Outrageous Government Conduct.” This defense is reserved for cases where the police behavior is “so fundamentally unfair as to be shocking to the universal sense of justice,” and it is exceptionally difficult to prove.

Summary of Key Takeaways

What You Need to Know About Entrapment

Entrapment is a complete affirmative defense to a criminal charge, not merely a mitigation of the penalty.
The Subjective Test (Federal Law) focuses on whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime before government involvement.
The Objective Test (Some States) focuses on whether the police conduct would have induced a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.
Law enforcement is permitted to use decoys and undercover techniques to provide an opportunity; this is not entrapment.

CRIMINAL DEFENSE CARD: THE ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE

The defense of entrapment is a constitutional check on the power of the state. It challenges the integrity of the prosecution by arguing that the criminal design originated not with the defendant, but with the government itself. Success hinges on demonstrating that a government agent used undue pressure, sympathy, or coercion—going beyond merely offering an opportunity—to induce a crime that the defendant was otherwise unwilling and unready to commit. If entrapment is proven, the defendant must be acquitted.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Can a private citizen commit entrapment?

No. The entrapment defense applies only to conduct by government agents, which includes law enforcement officers and informants acting under their direction. Inducement by a private citizen, even if coercive, does not constitute legal entrapment.

Q: What is the difference between “inducement” and “solicitation”?

Solicitation is simply asking or offering an opportunity to commit a crime (e.g., “Do you want to buy these drugs?”). Inducement is a higher bar, requiring persuasion, coercion, or exploitation (e.g., repeatedly pleading for a drug purchase based on supposed withdrawal and suffering). Mere solicitation is a legal and common tactic in sting operations.

Q: Is evidence of prior crimes allowed if I claim entrapment?

Yes. Once you raise the entrapment defense, the government can introduce evidence of your prior similar criminal acts, not to prove you committed the current crime, but specifically to prove you had the necessary predisposition to commit it before the government intervened. This is a key risk of raising the defense.

Q: Can I claim entrapment and still deny that I committed the crime?

In the federal system, the Supreme Court has ruled that a defendant can argue both that they did not commit the crime and that they were entrapped if the jury finds they did commit it (known as inconsistent defenses). However, some state laws require the defendant to admit the substantial elements of the crime before asserting entrapment, making the strategy state-dependent and highly complex.

Disclaimer

This blog post was generated by an artificial intelligence based on publicly available legal information and is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Entrapment is a highly complex defense that is heavily dependent on jurisdiction and specific facts. Do not use this information to make legal decisions. Always consult with a qualified Legal Expert for advice regarding your individual situation.

Understanding the intricate balance between legitimate undercover investigation and unlawful government overreach is essential for anyone facing criminal charges. The entrapment defense is complex and highly fact-specific; consult a seasoned Legal Expert to evaluate its applicability in your case.

Entrapment defense, subjective test, lack of predisposition, government inducement, objective test, sting operation, criminal defense, affirmative defense, Jacobson v. United States, Sherman v. United States, due process

geunim