NCJ Number
147398
Journal
Duke Law Journal Volume: 43 Issue: 2 Dated: (November 1993) Pages: 384-423
Date Published
1993
Length
40 pages
Annotation
This legal note reviews types of evidence that may be used to prove a defendant was predisposed to commit an offense and was not entrapped and also analyzes various evidentiary rules that affect the predisposition inquiry.
Abstract
Since its inception, the entrapment defense has focused on a subjective evaluation of the defendant's predisposition. The focus of the predisposition inquiry is on the actions and intent of the individual defendant. This focus is appropriate because criminal laws are based on the premise that every person is accountable for acts he or she willingly commits. By focusing on each defendant's predisposition to commit a crime, the entrapment defense protects from conviction those defendants who are not morally blameworthy and committed the offense only because they were induced to do so by the government. Critics have argued that changes in Federal Rules of Evidence should be made to protect the criminal defendant who claims entrapment. Proposed changes include the exclusion of evidence on the defendant's reputation and his or her commission of similar acts. The author contends, however, that these changes are without merit and may result in the release of many defendants who were not entrapped and may prohibit the government from introducing relevant and highly probative evidence of a defendant's criminal conduct. The entrapment defense exists to protect from conviction only defendants who lack moral blameworthiness, and current evidentiary rules serve this purpose by accurately and fairly separating blameworthy criminals from those who are wrongfully entrapped by government inducement. Rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court on the entrapment defense are noted. 188 footnotes