When someone is charged with a crime, the defense of entrapment may come into play if it is believed that law enforcement officials induced the criminal behavior. Entrapment refers to situations where government agents, typically undercover officers, entice or persuade a person to commit a crime that they otherwise would not have committed. This concept is important because it raises concerns about fair play in law enforcement and the rights of individuals under the U.S. Constitution.
This blog post will explore what entrapment means in criminal law, the defenses available to defendants in such cases, and relevant case law that outlines how courts have interpreted and applied the entrapment defense.
What is Entrapment?
Entrapment occurs when a person is persuaded or coerced by law enforcement officers or their agents into committing a crime that they would not have committed without such inducement. The defense asserts that the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime and only did so because of the excessive encouragement or coercion by law enforcement.
The key point of an entrapment defense is the predisposition of the defendant. If the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime before law enforcement intervention, the entrapment defense is less likely to succeed. However, if the defendant can prove that the crime was solely the result of law enforcement pressure or manipulation, the defense may apply.
Objective vs. Subjective Standards for Entrapment
There are two primary tests that courts use to evaluate entrapment claims: the subjective test and the objective test. The application of these tests can vary depending on the jurisdiction:
Subjective Test of an Entrapment Defense
The subjective test, used in federal courts and the majority of states, focuses on the defendant’s state of mind. This test asks whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime before being approached by law enforcement. Under this test, if the defendant was already inclined to break the law and only needed the opportunity provided by law enforcement, entrapment does not apply. Conversely, if the defendant was induced to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed, the defense might succeed.
Objective Test of an Entrapment Defense
The objective test is used in a few states and looks at the actions of law enforcement rather than the defendant’s state of mind. The question here is whether the conduct of law enforcement would have induced a normally law-abiding citizen to commit the crime. This test is more concerned with whether law enforcement used improper tactics, such as harassment or fraud, to encourage criminal behavior.
Legal Defenses for Entrapment
When raising the defense of entrapment, the defendant essentially admits to having committed the crime but claims that they were induced to do so by law enforcement. To succeed with this defense, the defendant must usually show two things:
- Inducement by Law Enforcement: The defendant must provide evidence that law enforcement officers actively induced or persuaded them to commit the crime. This can include showing that the officers used pressure, threats, or other forms of coercion to compel the criminal act.
- Lack of Predisposition: The defendant must prove that they were not predisposed to commit the crime before being approached by law enforcement. Courts will consider the defendant’s criminal record, personal character, and any prior engagement in criminal activities to determine predisposition.
While the defendant bears the burden of raising the entrapment defense, the prosecution must disprove it once it has been established. This means the prosecution must show that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime or that law enforcement actions were not overly coercive.
Case Law on Entrapment
Several landmark cases exist to support an entrapment defense including:
Sorrells v. United States (1932)
In Sorrells v. United States, 53 S.Ct. 210 (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court first recognized the entrapment defense in federal courts. In this case, an undercover Prohibition agent repeatedly asked the defendant, Sorrells, to obtain alcohol for him. After initially refusing, Sorrells eventually relented and was arrested for violating Prohibition laws. The Supreme Court held that the entrapment defense was valid because Sorrells had no predisposition to commit the crime and was induced to do so by the agents repeated requests.
Key Takeaway: This case established the foundation for the subjective test of entrapment, focusing on the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime.
Sherman v. United States (1958)
In Sherman v. United States, 78 S.Ct. 819 (1958), an undercover agent met Sherman in a rehabilitation program and convinced him to sell narcotics, despite Sherman’s reluctance. The Court found that Sherman had been induced by the undercover agent and had no predisposition to engage in drug sales. The Court held that the government could not punish a person for a crime they were pressured into committing by law enforcement.
Key Takeaway: This case emphasized the importance of the predisposition inquiry and reinforced that law enforcement should not exploit individuals who were not inclined to commit crimes.
Jacobson v. United States (1992)
In Jacobson v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 1535 (1992), the defendant was repeatedly contacted by federal agents over the course of two years, eventually inducing him to buy child pornography. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jacobson, holding that the government had failed to prove that he was predisposed to commit the crime before their involvement. The decision underscored the importance of distinguishing between a predisposed individual and one who is merely responsive to persistent government inducement.
Key Takeaway: This case clarified that prolonged government persuasion or enticement could invalidate the defendant’s criminal act if there was no clear evidence of predisposition.
Successful Entrapment Defenses
For a successful entrapment defense, several factors can come into play:
- Excessive Government Involvement: Courts will evaluate the degree of law enforcement’s involvement in the crime. If officers or agents played a significant role in planning or carrying out the crime, this may strengthen the defendant’s case.
- Lack of Criminal History: If the defendant has no prior criminal record or a history of law-abiding behavior, it may suggest they were not predisposed to commit the offense.
- Reluctance on the Part of the Defendant: The defense will often point to evidence of reluctance, hesitation, or initial refusal by the defendant, which can demonstrate that they were not inclined to commit the crime before law enforcement involvement.
- Overt Inducement Tactics: If law enforcement employed coercive or deceptive tactics, such as threats or promises of financial rewards, these may be viewed as improper inducements that invalidate the criminal act.
My Final Thoughts
Entrapment is a complex legal defense that requires a nuanced understanding of both the defendant’s mindset and law enforcement actions. In federal courts and most state courts, the focus remains on the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime. Case law such as Sorrells, Sherman, and Jacobson highlight the importance of preventing law enforcement from creating criminals through improper inducement. Defendants who can show that they were pressured into committing a crime they would not have otherwise engaged in may successfully claim entrapment, but the defense is not easy to prove.
For anyone facing charges where entrapment might apply, it is crucial to consult with legal counsel experienced in this area. An experienced attorney can evaluate the facts of the case and build a strong defense to challenge the prosecution’s narrative.
If you, or someone you know, will be proceeding to trial, challenging an imposed sentence or pursuing any type of post-conviction relief, our book, The Colossal Book of Criminal Citations, is a crucial resource in the pursuit of justice. Our books are soft cover, institution friendly, in stock, and frequently advertised in Prison Legal News magazine. Order your copy today, or on behalf of someone incarcerated.