Entrapment

Entrapment as a Trial Defense

Entrapment is a legal defense used in criminal trials, asserting that the defendant was induced or persuaded by law enforcement to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. This defense, rooted in both statutory and case law, centers on the idea that the government cannot create criminal behavior for the purpose of prosecuting an individual.

It is not enough for law enforcement to provide an opportunity to commit a crime; instead, federal criminal defense lawyer Nate Crowley must prove that the government induced the crime through coercive or overly persuasive tactics.

Legal Standards for Entrapment

The two primary tests used in determining entrapment are the subjective test and the objective test.

The majority of U.S. courts, including federal courts, apply the subjective test, which focuses on the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime. Under this test, the key inquiry is whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime before government agents became involved. If the defendant was predisposed, even if the government encouraged the illegal conduct, entrapment cannot be claimed. The government, however, bears the burden of proving predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt once entrapment has been raised as a defense.

The subjective test stems from the landmark Supreme Court case, Sorrells v. United States (1932), in which the Court held that entrapment occurs when the criminal intent originates with law enforcement, not the defendant. In this case, an undercover Prohibition agent repeatedly requested that the defendant sell him alcohol. The Court found that entrapment had occurred because the defendant had no prior intent to engage in illegal conduct.

On the other hand, the objective test, used in some states, focuses on the behavior of law enforcement rather than the defendant’s predisposition. This approach asks whether law enforcement’s actions would have induced a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense. If the government’s tactics are found to be so egregious or coercive that they could have ensnared an innocent person, then entrapment may be found, regardless of the defendant’s prior intent. This test reflects a public policy interest in limiting overzealous police practices.

Key Factors in an Entrapment Defense

Several factors are evaluated when considering an entrapment defense, including:

1. Predisposition of the Defendant: The court will look at the defendant’s history and actions prior to the government’s involvement. Factors such as a criminal record, previous involvement in similar activities, and behavior indicating a readiness to commit the crime weigh heavily against an entrapment claim.
2. Government Conduct: Courts will scrutinize the actions of law enforcement to determine whether they simply provided an opportunity for crime, or if they used coercive, deceptive, or overly persuasive tactics. Repeated requests, excessive pressure, or exploiting personal weaknesses like financial hardship may support an entrapment defense.
3. Nature of the Crime: Some crimes, particularly those involving narcotics or prostitution, are more commonly associated with entrapment defenses, as they often involve undercover operations and sting tactics where the opportunity to commit a crime is presented by law enforcement.

Entrapment Law in California

s. Under California law, the focus is on the conduct of law enforcement officers, rather than the defendant’s predisposition to commit a crime. This means that a defendant can raise the defense of entrapment by showing that the actions of law enforcement were likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.

The standard for entrapment in California is more lenient for defendants compared to the subjective test used in federal courts, as the defendant’s past behavior or predisposition to commit a crime is not the central concern. California federal defense attorney Nate Crowley understands the necessity of addressing entrapment in the lower courts before the case lands in federal court.

The leading case in California on entrapment is People v. Barraza (1979), in which the California Supreme Court explicitly rejected the subjective test. The court emphasized that the focus should be on whether law enforcement’s methods would have likely induced a reasonable, law-abiding person to commit the crime. According to the court, the purpose of the objective test is to prevent law enforcement from engaging in overzealous tactics that could trap the innocent or morally reluctant.

California’s Entrapment Test

In applying California’s objective test, courts consider whether law enforcement engaged in conduct that would be considered likely to cause a person who is normally not disposed to criminal behavior to commit a crime. Examples of such conduct include:

1. Harassment and Pressure: If law enforcement applied undue pressure or repeatedly badgered a person into committing the crime, this could constitute entrapment. Persistent persuasion, emotional manipulation, or exploitation of personal vulnerabilities, such as financial desperation, are factors that can strengthen an entrapment defense in California.
2. Use of Fraud or Deception: Courts look at whether law enforcement employed deceitful tactics to induce the crime. While a certain amount of deception is inherent in undercover operations, if the level of fraud or trickery is excessive, it may qualify as entrapment under California law
3. Exploitation of Personal Hardships: Entrapment may also be found if law enforcement takes advantage of a defendant’s specific circumstances, such as personal or financial struggles, to coerce them into committing a crime they otherwise would not have committed.

Unlike federal law, the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime is largely irrelevant in California. Even if a person has a history of criminal behavior, if the law enforcement tactics are found to be excessively coercive, they may still be able to assert the defense of entrapment.

Burden of Proof in California

Once the defendant raises the defense of entrapment, the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that no entrapment occurred. This requires the prosecution to demonstrate that the law enforcement actions were within acceptable investigative boundaries and that they did not improperly induce the defendant into committing the crime.

Entrapment As A Powerful Defense

Entrapment is a effective defense that serves to protect individuals from being unfairly prosecuted for crimes they were induced to commit by law enforcement. The challenge for criminal defense attorney Nate Crowley in presenting this defense lies in proving that the criminal intent originated with the government and not the defendant. When successful, the entrapment defense can result in an acquittal, preserving the fundamental fairness of the criminal justice system.

For legal counsel about entrapment consult federal criminal defense attorney Nate Crowley.

Fill out our contact form on the Home Page https://www.natecrowleylaw.com/
Phone (619) 202-8188 OR email admin@crowleycrowleylaw.com