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

Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin (
Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:30:52 +0000

> From: "Craig Presson" <>

> On 30 Jan 98 at 6:10, extropians-digest wrote:
> > "[E]ven if the defendant denies one or more elements of the crime, he
> > is entitled to an entrapment instruction whenever there is sufficient
> > evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment."_Mathews
> > v. U.S._ 485 U.S. 58, 108 S.Ct. 883, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988) (Rhenquist,
> > C.J.)
> >
> > 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."
> Or, heavier on the sarcasm, "The prosecution's case is missing two
> key elements -- one, the right defendant; and two, evidence of any
> wrongdoing that is not the result of entrapment."

Lawyers frequently argue in the alternative. One excellent example
(I don't know if it's real or not) involved a person being sued for
borrowing an item and then returning it badly damaged.

The defense was (a) the defendant never borrowed the item, (b) the
defendant returned the item in perfect condition, and (c) the item
was already damaged when the defendant borrowed it.

If the defense could convince the court that any *one* of these
things was true, the court should find for the defendant.

US$500 fee for receipt of unsolicited commercial email. USC 47.5.II.227