ABSTRACT
In Jacobson v. United States, 503 US 540, the US Supreme Court voted five-four that the federal government failed to prove Keith Jacobson was predisposed to violate the Child Protection Act. As highlighted in Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent, the Court's decision may have fundamentally altered the course of criminal entrapment law. After its first decision regarding entrapment law in Sorrels v. United States, 287 US 435, the Court continued to reaffirm its use of a subjective test to determine culpability. Under this test, the Court focused on the mental state of the defendant and asked whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime, and whether the crime was induced by the government's actions. Some critics believe, however, that despite the majority's claims, the Court actually moved closer to the objective test because of the strong views it expressed against the government's conduct. The implications of this case remain to be worked out in subsequent decisions.
