Re: Entrapment (Was: Re: Clinton's sexual adventures...)

Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@mercury.colossus.net)
Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:18:36 -0800 (PST)

> > MY NOTE: This means that a defendant can deny that he committed the
> > crime, and then claim that the reason he committed it was because he
> > was entrapped.
>
> The law is full of strange loops like this, but this one can also be
> unravelled less strangely (and less entertainingly): "My client denies
> participating in the act in question, but even if the actual
> perpetrator were here on trial, the prosecution's case is tainted by
> entrapment."

Actually, there's no need at all to resort to such circumlocutions.
While sworn testimony must be consistent, pleadings need not come
even close. The standard lawyer's joke in this regard is "Your
honor, our claims are that (1) the plaintiff's injuries were not
the result of a dog bite, (2) it couldn't have been my dog that bit
him because it was tied up, (3) if my dog did bite him, it was because
the plaintiff provoked him when passing my yard, and (4) I don't
have a dog."

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC