Opinion ID: 2067998
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: claim of entrapment

Text: In making his next claim, that he was unlawfully entrapped, Connely relies solely on the holding in Jacobson v. U.S., ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1535, 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992). Therein, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the defendant's conviction for receiving child pornography through the mails. Government officials had discovered the defendant's name on the mailing list of a so-called adult bookstore from which he legally ordered two magazines and a brochure depicting nude children. Shortly after the defendant's legal purchase, Congress enacted the Child Protection Act of 1984, making such purchases illegal. Over a period of the ensuing 2½ years, there occurred repeated efforts by two Government agencies, through five fictitious organizations and a bogus pen pal, to explore [defendant's] willingness to break the new law by ordering sexually explicit photographs of children through the mail. ___ U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 1538. The Jacobson Court ruled that the defendant's conviction could not stand because the Government did not prove that [the defendant's] predisposition was independent and not the product of the attention that the Government had directed at [the defendant over a 2½-year period]. ___ U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 1541. The five-justice majority announced that [w]here the Government has induced an individual to break the law and the defense of entrapment is at issue ... the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by Government agents.  (Emphasis supplied.) ___ U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 1540.