West Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer Blog : Ronald Chapman: West Palm Beach Criminal Lawyer | Florida Criminal Attorney: DUI, Assault & Battery, Felonies | Criminal Law Firm

          In the case of United States v. Francis, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit stated that the defense of entrapment consists of the following two elements:

          1.  Government inducement of the crime; and

          2.  A lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant to commit the crime.

          But what exactly constitutes "inducement," and what constitutes a "lack of predisposition"?  It was these two issues that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals addressed in the Francis case.

           In that case, Henry Francis and another individual named Green were originally arrested for selling crack cocaine.  Francis then decided to hire a Jamaican named "Mauler" to kill the prosecutor, the investigating officer, and a confidential informant.  Francis later changed plans and decided to have some friends of his who were located in Jamaica carry out the murders.  Francis asked Green to help him acquire passports for the Jamaicans.  In an effort to help himself out with the U.S. Attorney's Office, Green told the F.B.I. what Francis had asked him to do.  Green also gave Francis the telephone number of an individual who was actually an undercover detective named Archie.  Green told Francis that Archie had provided Green with false documents in the past and that he might be able to help Francis obtain the passports he needed.

          Over the next two months, Francis and Archie had approximately twenty telephone conversations during which Archie agreed to provide Francis with four passports costing a total of $2,000.00.  Archie also offered to provide the Jamaican assassins with guns. 

          As a result of his conversations with Green and Archie, Francis was eventually charged with and convicted of conspiring to murder a federal official engaged in the performance of his official duty as well as murder for hire.  On appeal, Francis argued that the prosecution did not prove that he was predisposed to commit murder.

          The Eleventh Circuit rejected Francis's argument for the following reasons:

• It was Francis who first brought up the subject of murdering the three individuals;

• It was Francis who attempted to hire Mauler to carry out the assassinations;

• Before Francis was introduced to Archie, Francis contacted the Jamaicans about performing the murders;

• Francis asked Green to get passports for the Jamaicans; and

• Francis asked Green to take pictures of one of the intended targets if he were released on bond.

          The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded by stating:

          "The evidence supports the conclusion that the government did not implant in Francis's mind the disposition to murder [the three individuals].  Although Green and Archie assisted Francis, and Archie offered his services as an assassin, the government did not initiate the assassination plot.  Rather, the government merely provided Francis with a method of accomplishing the crime.  The fact that [government agents] merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense does not defeat the prosecution.  Artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those engaged in criminal enterprises."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

         In the case of Jacobson v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Mr. Jacobson after finding that agents of the federal government entrapped him when they overstepped the line between trapping an unwary innocent person and trapping an unwary criminal.

         In 1984, Mr. Jacobson ordered two magazines and a brochure from an out-of-state adult bookstore that contained photographs of nude preteen and teenage boys.  At that time, it was legal to order such materials through the U.S. Postal Service.  However, that same year Congress passed the Child Protection Act of 1984 which outlawed such activity.

          For the next two-and-a-half years, two government agencies, through five fictitious organizations and a bogus pen pal, explored Jacobson's willingness to break the new law by ordering sexually-explicit photos of children through the mail.  After receiving a letter from one such fictitious organization in 1987, Jacobson ordered a magazine that showed young boys engaged in various sexual activities.  He was then arrested and indicted for violating the Child Protection Act.

          At his trial, Jacobson argued that he had been entrapped, but the jury rejected that argument as did the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  Jacobson then appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court which concluded that he had indeed been entrapped into buying pornographic materials.

         The High Court stated that "[w]here the Government has induced an individual to break the law and the defense of entrapment is at issue, as it was in this case, the prosecution must prove beyond [a] reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by Government agents. . . .  Had the agents in this case simply offered [Jacobson] the opportunity to order child pornography through the mails, and . . . had [Jacobson] promptly availed himself of this criminal opportunity, it is unlikely that his entrapment defense would have [ultimately been successful]. . . .   But that is not what happened here.  By the time [Jacobson] finally placed his order, he had already been the target of 26 months of repeated mailings and communications from the Government agents and fictitious organizations.  Therefore, although he had become predisposed to break the law by May 1987, it is our view that the Government did not prove that this predisposition was independent and not the product of the attention that the Government had directed at [Jacobson] since January 1985."  (Italics added.)

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Entrapment occurs when the police, or someone working for the police, cause a person to commit a crime using methods that create a substantial risk that the crime was committed by someone who was not ready to commit such a crime but for the improper methods employed by the police.

In order to better understand the concept of entrapment, it is helpful to look at some actual cases in which Florida courts have ruled that the person charged with a crime was entrapped by the police.

In one such case, an informant promised the accused individual that she would become romantically involved with him if he helped her to get drugs, the informant told the accused that she needed the drugs to help cope with cancer, and the accused had no criminal history.

In another case, entrapment was found where the police created videos that contained child pornography, and the accused had never previously been involved in any known criminal activity.

In two other cases, entrapment was found where an informant entered into an agreement with the police in which the informant helped set up drug deals in exchange for a reduced sentence.

If you have been charged with a crime in Florida and the facts in your case are similar to the facts in the cases just mentioned, you may have an argument that you were entrapped by the police and are, therefore, not guilty.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link