Running head: ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE

Running head: ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE

Phase 5 Individual Project Colorado Technical University Online CJUS375-1104B-02: Criminal Procedure Dr. Jennifer Hacker Christopher B. Lane

Portions of this assignment were previously submitted in its entirety on the following dates: December 10, 2011, December 11, 2011, December 12, 2011, December 16, 2011, the course code is CJUS375-1104B-02: Criminal Procedure, the instructor name: Dr. Jennifer Hacker

Running head: ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE

Hampton Case 1. Facts- What are the facts in the Hampton case? Did Hampton use this to try to put doubt? This could very well have been Hamptons way of trying to get an appeal for his case. The defendant argued he was entrapped by the authorities (US Supreme Court v. Hampton, 2011)

2. Issues- What are the issues in the Hampton case? Hampton approached the authorities if they had drugs for sell. The defendant argued he was entrapped by the authorities; there was no evidence to prove that theory (US Supreme Court v. Hampton, 2011).

3. Rule- What was the ruling in the Hampton case? Was it in favor of the Prosecution? Was it in favor of the defendant? The Supreme Court ruled, in order, to be considered as entrapment, then, and only then will it be considered as entrapment (US Supreme Court v. Hampton, 2011)

4. Analysis- What was your analysis pertaining in the Hampton case? Firmly believe that this defendant had an addiction to drugs. If he did not get it from the authorities, the defendant would have gotten it from somewhere else.

Running head: ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE

Jacobson Case 1. Facts- What are the facts in the Jacobson case? The defendant, Jacobson, was charged with child pornography. There may be some speculation for the authorities if they, in fact, went through the defendants mail, without a court order, which was not brought up in the court records in this case (JACOBSON v. UNITED STATES, 2011 ). 2. Issue- What were the issues in the Jacobson case? The defendant, Jacobson was charged with Child Pornography, which is a violation of the Child Protection Act of 1984 (JACOBSON v. UNITED STATES, 2011 ).

3. Rule- What was the ruling in this case? Was it in favor of the Prosecution? Was it in favor of the Defendant? The ruling will be decided by the Justices of a higher court; in fact, the courts ruled in favor of the verdict from the lower courts (JACOBSON v. UNITED STATES, 2011 ).

4. Analysis- What was your analysis pertaining to the Jacobson case? Jacobson was basically placing blame on the authorities in this case, instead of placing the blame on himself, for his wrongdoings.

Running head: ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE

Title: US Supreme Court v. Charles Hampton 425 U.S. 484 (1976)

Facts: The defendant, Charles Hampton argued that the agents entrapped his client into the contraband (US Supreme Court v. Charles Hampton, 1976). The petitioner argued that he was being entrapped by the agents, and was denied his due process (US Supreme Court v. Charles Hampton, 1976). The other facts in this case, the defendant was selling heroin on the streets, which the defendant was basically using that defense to be granted an appeal in his conviction. In past experience, when seeing someone doing drugs; when that person is supplying it, will use it as well, in what some people would like to call it, experimenting.

Issues: The issues in this case, whether or not, proves the agents entrapped the defendant to buy the heroin, to begin with. As we all know Heroin is an addicting drug, if not administered by a licensed medical professional. The Justices concluded there was no entrapping the done by the agents in this case (US Supreme Court v. Charles Hampton, 1976). Let us look at this in a much broader approach, the term entrapment means as stated by the author, US Legal, a person is entrapped, when he/she may be induced or perhaps persuaded by either someone in law enforcement, and/or their agents to commit a crime, which he/she had no previous intent to commit (US Legal, 2011). In the Hampton case, what happened to a search warrant signed by a judge, to search and seizure in place; is that not a defendants constitutional right?

Running head: ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE

Decisions: The justices rendered their decisions, and concluded, the charges still stand, and the defendant is order to carry out his sentence (US Supreme Court v. Charles Hampton, 1976).

Reasoning: The reasoning, whether, the defendant would have to come to terms that the agents did not force him to buy the contraband, he purchased the contraband on his own free will

Dissenting Opinions: The dissenting opinions in this case were from the justices of the US Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the land, which this also means the other justices will voice their decision on a particular case, which is brought in front of them. In this case, the justices, and including, the Chief Justice gives their decision on the Hampton case, which, the defendant would have had a problem with heroin, regardless, the agents got him to buy the contraband to begin with.

Running head: ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE

Title: US Supreme Court v. Keith Jacobson 503 U.S. 540 (1992)

Facts: Keith Jacobson ordered child pornography from mail, which was closely investigated by the authorities. Keith Jacobson argued that he was entrapped; the justices did not think the authorities would entrap; Mr. Jacobson (US Court of Appeals v. Keith Jacobson, 1991). On September 24, 1987 violated a provision of the Child Protection Act of 1984 (US Court of Appeals v. Keith Jacobson, 1991).

Issues: The issues in the Keith Jacobsons case; there was ever mentioned of the fact, that the defendant Keith Jacobson received a search warrant in hand, was not exactly sure if someone is allowed to go through the defendants mail. Although, it does not excuse the fact, he was into child pornography, which is against the law.

Decisions: The courts concluded that the defendant was in violation of the Child Protection Act of 1984. The Court of Appeals rejected the motion of granting Keith Jacobson an appeal; they also concluded the authorities that were investigating this case; did not impose any action that would conclude that they entrap the defendant (US Court of Appeals v. Keith Jacobson, 1991).

Running head: ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE

Reasoning: The reasoning in the Keith Jacobsons case. Keith Jacobson was on the stand in his trial; when the prosecutor asked him, if in fact, he was offended, and Mr. Jacobson said, he was not offended (US Court of Appeals v. Keith Jacobson, 1991). Collectively, anyone in the right frame of mind, could have said, they were offended by child pornography. Putting Jacobson on the stand in his trial should not have happened. Realistically, the defense attorney for the defendant should have not allowed him to take a stand. Prosecutors look for this, to go after the defendant in this case.

Dissenting opinions: The Court of Appeals Justices concluded there were no entrapment laws being violated by the authorities. The defendant committed a crime, and has no claim for his petition for an appeal, because his 5th Amendment rights were violated.

Did you have probable cause to approach the defendant while he was parked at the traffic light? Why or Why not?

There is probable cause to pull a suspect over, if in fact, the authorities have reason to believe the suspect, or the alleged was breaking the law. In order to avoid any confusion, the search warrant should be in hand, so that the constitutional rights were not violated. It is evident

Running head: ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE

that the defendant was looking for drugs. Anytime a person(s) signs back of their drivers licenses, will allow law enforcement to pull you over for probable cause. There are other probable causes in this case. If it was a routine traffic stop, and/or the area had a high crime rate in drugs, then, the probable cause will be a valid.

Do you feel that the entrapment defense is a valid one, considering the assignment scenario? Why or Why not? The entrapment defense has to be proven. A few questions should go through his mind. The defendant would have to prove this in the trial, which could be a tough one to prove in a court of law. The defendant came to the undercover authorities in asking for some drugs to buy. The authorities did not go to the defendant. In order for the entrapment defense to be proven, the entrapment defense law would be valid if the authorities induce the defendant in buying the drugs. In both court cases, the defense argued that their client was entrapped by the authorities, which it was basically, their way of putting doubt in the case to begin with, in order, to get an appeal for their client, in the mere hopes for another trial. Appeals are not often awarded to the defendant, unless the conviction was not valid, because a constitutional amendment had been violated.

Is providing the opportunity for someone to commit a crime the same as entrapment? Why or Why not? Scenario: If John Doe was induced by the authorities to buy drugs, even if, John Doe did not have a history of using drugs. If John Doe was out with some other people that could testify that he would not do that, and they could say this under oath, then, it could persuade the jury to

Running head: ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE

10

come back with a non-guilty verdict to their defendant. If the defendant constitutional rights were violated, which could result in entrapment; entrapment is not that easy to prove in court. The defense tries to argue that the entrapment was valid, with very good reason, if in fact, the defendant was violated.

If the substance were marijuana, how much be needed for a misdemeanor? How much be needed for a felony charge? In the state of Kentucky, according to the KRS code: 218A.010, a Class A misdemeanor would be less than 5 plants Subsequent offense; the plants would have to weigh less than 8oz. A Class D felony would be over 5 plants, and the plants would have to weigh over 8oz to 5lbs. Class D felony; Subsequent offense; Class C felony is over 5lbs; Class C felony; Subsequent offense; Class B felony; the possession of over 8oz, which could be considered as a prima facie evidence of the intentions to sell (FindLaw, 2011).

Here are some more questions to consider in this assignment, and they are as follows:

What is the difference between an intermediate appellate court and a high appellate court? Are they referred to by other names? Explain.

The intermediate appellate court is consisting of the State Appeals Court, and the State Supreme Court is what the intermediate appellate court is referring too (Hall, 2005). The high appellate court would be the US Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court (Hall, 2005). The intermediate will hear cases that occur in that particular state. If the defendant(s) do not agree

Running head: ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE

11

with the intermediate court decision on their appeal, then, the defendant(s) can take their appeal to the high appellate courts in the criminal justice system (Hall, 2005). Once the US Supreme Court has a chance to look at the case, and renders a decision, then, the appeals process stops (Hall, 2005).

What options does the court have regarding the case in question? Be specific. According to the author, Michael C. Dorf stated, the cases should be solely on concrete facts concerning the case, as to oppose, what is hear say, but this will be deciding for all cases in the future. Michael C. Dorf goes on to say, article 3 contains both a concreteness norm and an abstraction norm (Dorf, 2008). Dorf goes on to say, Article 3s invocation of the Judiciary Power will rest upon the assumption that judicial decisions are necessarily abstract or general (Dorf, 2008). Dorf goes on to say, the percept that like cases should be treated a like, which would be rooted both in the rule of law (Dorf, 2008).

If the appellate court finds that the defense is valid and reverses the judgment, will you be held liable either civilly, criminally, or both? Will the department be held liable? This is my hypothesis, which may not be the case, but the appellate court reverses the verdict, and grants the appeal, then, there will be another hearing, there might have been some evidence during the trial that was missing, or it could prove that the defendant was innocent. That does not necessarily mean the lower courts will be punished for it. Perhaps, at the time of the trial, the prosecution assumed they had enough evidence to convict the defendant. Otherwise, the alleged would not have been in the court room to begin with. The prosecution does not go and seek everyone as being a possible suspect; there has to be proof in order to charge someone with a

Running head: ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE

12

crime. Scenario: Playing the role of a prosecutor of a high profile case involving a murder of an innocent person, the prosecutor cannot go out an arrest everyone on the street; to falsely accused someone of a serious crime without the proper evidence is a serious crime. To answer this question, no one can assume there would be charges brought up. Another scenario: If the defendant, was acquitted, because the lack of evidence, and went out to commit more crimes of the same as the defendant was charged for, then, there could be charges brought up. Never heard of cases being done this way; that is not to say it does not exist. Scenario: If the police department was doing some illegal activity, and it was revealed in the trial, then, there could very well be charges brought up, and including all of the parties involved in the illegal activity.

If you or the department is held liable, explain the theory involved. If in fact, the department or the person is held liable, the judge can exercise his/her authority to issue an arrest warrant for the accused (Hall, 2005). Then, that person or the department will have their day in court, not as officer of the courts, but as a defendant in that particular case (Hall, 2005).

In conclusion: These court cases tells the reader a lot about what the crime the defendant was charged with, and how the defense tries to prove the entrapment theory in the higher courts, in order, to get an appeal for their client. Entrapment laws in a criminal case are hard to prove, when, in fact, the evidence is pointing at their client. This is considered as a classic case of chess to see who will persuade the jury for what they seek. The defense is seeking an acquittal, and the

Running head: ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE

13

prosecution is seeking a guilty verdict. The laws are in place to keep people from using their authority to be above the law, which brings me to this interesting conclusion. When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out not to be true; we would expect the American people to rise up and be heard, which in reality, they did not. Then, when the out of route torture thing surfaced, it was revealed, that our government participated in rendition, a practice were we kidnap people; then they were turned them over to regimes who specialize in torturing people. We would be sure the American people would stand up, and be heard. In fact, we stood mute. Then came the news, which we jailed what we assume were terror suspects, we would lock them up, without a fair trial, or even the right to confront their accuser. You would think the American people would not stand for that, in fact, we did. In addition, it has been discovered the Executive Branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance of the American people, you and me. We at least had thought we would consult ourselves; finally, the American people will have enough at this point. Evidently, we have not. In fact, if the people of the United States have spoken the message is; we are okay with it all, torture, warrantless searches and seizures, illegal wiretappings; prison without a fair trial, or any trial; war on false pre-tenses; we as a citizenry are apparently not that offended.

Running head: ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE

14

References Dorf, M., C. (2008). Dicta and Article III, Cornell Law Library, retrieved from: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=facpub December 18, 2011 Find Law. (2011). Kentucky Marijuana Laws, FindLaw.com, retrieved from: http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/marijuana/kentucky/ December 12, 2011 Hall, K., L. (2005). Court System in the United States. Encyclopedia.com, retrieved from: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/court_system_in_the_United_States.aspx December 18, 2011 Justia. (2011). US Court of Appeals v. Keith Jacobson, 503 U.S. 540 (1992), US Court of Appeals 8th Circuit, Justia.com, retrieved from: http://supreme.justia.com/us/503/540/case.html December 12, 2011 Justia. (2011). US Supreme Court v. Charles Hampton, 425 U.S. 484, Justia.com, retrieved from: http://supreme.justia.com/us/425/484/case.html December 12, 2011 US Legal. (2011). Legal Definition of Entrapment, US Legal.com, retrieved from: http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/entrapment/ December 12, 2011