ENTRAPMENT

Entrapment



Entrapment

Introduction

In the United States, the entrapment defense has evolved through case law. Entrapment provides a defense against criminal accuses when it is determined that the official or agent supported by a private individual who by no means associated with the government, it is not at all entrapment (US Legal, 2011). An individual persuaded by an acquaintance to make a sale of drugs has no legitimate excuse when law enforcement officer are informed that the individual has agreed to sale drugs. US law history is full of entrapment cases; for example, United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 490 (1973), Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 380 (1958), and Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 446-49 (1932). This paper takes into study two significant cases of defense entrapment, titled Hampton v. United States (1976) and State v. Metcalf (2008).

Title: Hampton V United States (1976)

The Facts of the Case

Jules Hutton was an informant of (DEA Drug Enforcement Agency), which made Charles Hampton an acquaintance. As per the government, Hampton informed Hutton that he might take heroin and was eager to sell drugs. In response, Hutton stated he might find and orchestrate a buyer for drug sale. Hutton and Hampton posed two meetings with agents of DEA posing as purchasers. On the second meeting, Hampton was detained. Hampton stated he was not aware that he was selling drugs (heroin). He asserted that Hutton given him the drugs and that Hutton had asked him they were bogus. Through Hutton, government has given him with the drugs; thus he has been entrapped and therefore, innocent. Hampton was found guilty after a trial in US District Court. He filed an appeal for the Eighth Circuit in the US Court of Appeals, charging entrapment and an infringement of the due process clause of 5th Amendment. His conviction was affirmed based on the 8th Circuit (Yasuda, 1982).

The Issues

Whether it is unconstitutional as the Congress assigns a non-legislative body to enforce it and if the purposes of the Act exceed that of raising revenue?

Decisions

The Court asserted the ruling of the 8th Circuit in a 5-3 decision. To write for the majority, Justice William H. Rehnquist based on the earlier opinion of the Court in law case of United States v. Russell where the entrapment defense was unavailable where… an agent of government supplied an essential ingredient in an illegal drug manufacturing. However, in case of Hampton engaged in distribution and not in manufacturing of the drug, Hampton was yet prompted to sell drugs. On the contrary to the Government induced Hampton to sell the drug, “the informant of government, the police, and Hampton acted in gig. Thus, no breach of due process had taken place.

In Hampton v. United States, the decision affirmed that the entrapment defense can be applied when the perpetrator had no tendency to commit the offense; however, was tempted to do so by agents of government (Justia, 2011).

Reasoning

The reason behind is the Hampton plurality consideration the due process clause might ...