Entrapment is a defence against criminal charges based on the fact that the accused committed the crime solely as a result of harassment or coercion by a government official. Without this coercion, the crime would never have been committed. Imprisonment can be a difficult defence to assert because the defendant must prove that the idea and impetus of the crime were introduced by government officials and that the accused was not already willing or predisposed to commit the crime. It is also important to note that a trap can only occur with a government official such as an FBI agent or police agent, not an individual. In addition, since it is a positive defence, the criminal defendant has the burden of proving that a trap occurred. Part of the trap defence was first recognized by the Supreme Court in Raley v. Ohio. [35] There, four defendants testified before a committee of the Ohio State Legislature. The chair of the committee told them that they could assert their right to self-incrimination.
They asserted this right and refused to answer questions. However, Ohio law granted them immunity from prosecution, so the right to self-incrimination was not applicable, and they were then prosecuted for failing to answer questions. The Supreme Court overturned three of the four convictions based on the doctrine of incarceration by estoppel. (The fourth declined to make his speech, after which the committee found that the right to self-incrimination did not apply to this issue.) However, other States had already begun to overturn convictions on the grounds of trapping. [24] Federal courts have recognized trapping as a defence, beginning with Woo Wai v. United States, 223 F.1d 412 (9th Cir. 1915). [25] The U.S.
Supreme Court refused to raise the issue of imprisonment in Casey v. United States,[26] because the facts of this case were too vague to make a final decision on the matter; But four years later, it was. In Sorrells v. the United States,[2] the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction of a North Carolina factory worker who had yielded to repeated requests from an undercover agent to provide him with alcohol. He identified the crucial issue as “whether the accused is an otherwise innocent person whom the government wants to punish for an alleged crime that is the product of the creative activity of its own officials.” [2] Trapping is a legal term that describes what happens when a person is tricked into committing a crime. Police officers must be careful not to use techniques that could be considered captivity. Determining whether an accused has been harassed or compelled to commit a crime is a difficult task that requires a thorough assessment of the circumstances. In some states, an objective standard is used to assess the trap, which means that the accused must prove that the tactics used by government officials were such that any reasonable person would have been led to commit a crime.
If an officer provides an accused with the tool or means necessary to commit the crime, the defence is not automatically established. Although this factor can be considered evidence of entrapment, it is not conclusive. The most important determination is whether the officer implanted the criminal idea in the defendant`s head or whether the idea was already there. Even if an incentive has been demonstrated, a finding of predisposition for a trap defense is fatal. The pre-assessment investigation seeks to determine whether the accused was “an innocent negligent or rather a negligent criminal who willfully seized the opportunity to commit the crime.” Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Therefore, the predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the necessary intention to commit the crime, but still be trapped. A predisposition may also exist if there is no prior criminal involvement: “The voluntary commission of crime”, for example if a defendant accepts an offer from an undercover agent to buy or sell drugs, may in itself constitute an investment.
Jacobson, 503 U.S. to 550. A trap occurs when a person is encouraged by a person in an official capacity to commit a crime. If a trap has occurred, some of the prosecution`s evidence may be dismissed as unfair or the case may be dismissed altogether.