ABSTRACT
CAPSULE: Entrapment occurs when the government induces a person to commit a crime that he or she would not have otherwise committed or had no predisposition to commit. FACTS: A government informant met Sherman in a doctor’s office, where both were being treated for drug addiction. On several subsequent chance meetings, the informant asked Sherman if he knew a source of drugs. Sherman avoided the issue, but after several requests, Sherman offered to supply narcotics. Several times thereafter, Sherman supplied the informant with drugs for cost plus expenses. The informant notified FBI agents of the transactions and set up narcotics deals on three more occasions, which agents observed. ISSUE: Were the actions of the government informant such that they induced Sherman to commit crimes that he would have otherwise been unwilling to commit, resulting in entrapment? YES. SUPREME COURT DECISION: There is entrapment when the government induces an individual to commit a crime that he or she otherwise would not have attempted. REASON: “The case at bar illustrates an evil which the defense of entrapment is designed to overcome. The government informer entices someone attempting to avoid narcotics not only into carrying out an illegal sale but also returning to the habit of use. Selecting the proper time, the informer then tells the government agent. The setup is accepted by the agent without even a question as to the manner in which the informer encountered the seller. Thus the government plays on the weakness of an innocent party and beguiles him into committing crimes which he otherwise would not have attempted. Law enforcement does not require methods such as this.” CASE SIGNIFICANCE: This case sets a current test used by many courts for entrapment: that there is entrapment if the government induces an individual to commit a crime that he or she otherwise would not have committed. In this case, the informant asked Sherman if he knew a drug supplier and then whether Sherman himself would provide the narcotics. Sherman first avoided the issue, but then gave in after repeated requests. The Court reasoned in this case that Sherman would not have committed the crime had the government officials not, effectively, forced him to do so. This case also held that the accused bears the burden of proving entrapment and that the factual issue of whether the defendant was actually entrapped is a question of fact, not a question of law, and is, therefore, for the jury to decide.
