BACK TO Criminal Law & Procedure

 

United States v. Russell:

US Supreme Court, 1973 (Rehnquist)

Author: P.V. Neff

 

  1. F: Shapiro, an undercover agent, met with ∆ and made a deal where he would supply phenyl-2-propanone, an ingredient in methamphetamine, in return for half the product. This occurred and eventually ∆’s lab was raided. Phenyl-2-propanone was found aside from that given by Shapiro. ∆ had been making drugs for some time and had continued to make drugs even after the deal with Shapiro.
  2. I: Should courts use an objective, degree of government instigation test to determine entrapment? Can entrapment be found even where predisposition of the ∆ is admitted?
  3. H/R:
    1. 1. No. 2. No.
    2. Since the Court first addressed entrapment in Sorrells (1932) a subjective “predisposition of the defendant” test has been used. If the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime—i.e., did not do it solely because of government encouragement—there is no entrapment. The goal is to protect the “unwary innocent” but not the “unwary criminal.” This view was affirmed in Sherman (1958). These cases should not be overruled.
    3. The standard should not be expanded as the court of appeals has done. It would be too difficult to enforce objectively, and would be infringing on the duties of the executive branch.
    4. The law enforcement conduct here was not so egregious as to be a violation of due process.
    5. Since this is not a Constitutional rule, congress can change it if it sees fit.
  4. Dissent (Stewart):
    1. The methods employed on behalf of the government to bring about conviction cannot be countenanced. Focus should not be predisposition of ∆, but whether the police actions were not those that society feels law enforcement should use.
    2. Judge, not jury, should decide.
    3. Purpose of the defense is not to protect those “otherwise innocent,” but to prohibit unlawful govt. activity in instigating crime.