Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 	The reason I quoted the portion from Wikipedia was to point out that
> entrapment /doesn't/ require the victim to know he's a cop. In that
> particular case, the undercover agent was bugging the guy to do
> something illegal, and he did. It was ruled as entrapment, because it
> wasn't clear if the person would have done it ordinarily had he not been
> repeatedly asked to sell it.

That is an interesting case, too. In one part, the opinion of the court
was "The Circuit Court of Appeals reached the conclusion that the
defense of entrapment can be maintained only where, as a result of
inducement, the accused is placed in the attitude of having committed a
crime which he did not intend to commit, or where, by reason of the
consent implied in the inducement, no crime has in fact been committed."

However, the conclusion was that the error was in the initial court not
allowing the defense to argue entrapment before the jury, not that it
was actual entrapment. The end result was that the case was sent back to
the initial jurisdiction, and I would have to search around more to see
if that resulted in a new trial or just a dismissal. That case, by it
self, set no legal wording for what entrapment actually is.

Post a reply to this message