Document: 485 U.S. 58 108 S.Ct. 883 99 L.Ed.2d 54 Frederick MATHEWS, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 86-6109. Argued Dec. 2, 1987. Decided Feb. 24, 1988. Syllabus Petitioner, an employee of the Small Business Administration (SBA), was principal SBA contact for James DeShazer, president a company that participated in program. DeShazer believed his not being provided with certain program benefits because he had rejected petitioner's repeated requests loans. Assisting Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) investigation matter, under FBI surveillance, offered petitioner previously requested loan, which agreed to accept. Later, met and gave him money. Petitioner immediately arrested charged federal offense accepting bribe exchange official act. The District Court denied pretrial motion seeking raise entrapment defense, ruling available would admit all elements (including requisite mental state) offense. testified own defense although accepted it personal loan unrelated duties. court refused instruct jury as entrapment, found guilty, Appeals affirmed. Held: Even if defendant criminal case denies one or more crime, is entitled instruction whenever there sufficient evidence from reasonable could find entrapment—a has two related Government inducement lack predisposition on defendant's part engage conduct. There no merit Government's contention that, presupposes commission should be allowed both deny element thereof, rely inconsistent, affirmative entrapment. Although Rules Civil Procedure specifically authorize inconsistent pleading, absence cognate provision Criminal Rules' intent severely restrict defendants than civil parties, but much less elaborate system pleadings—particularly respect defendant—in case. A simple guilty plea puts prosecution its proof crime charged, raises Moreover, arguments allowing defenses will encourage perjury, lead confusion, subvert trial's truth-finding function are persuasive. question whether at trial insufficient support pretermitted by Appeals, open consideration remand. Pp. 62-66. 803 F.2d 325 (CA 7 1986), reversed remanded. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. J., filed concurring opinion, post, p. ---. SCALIA, judgment, WHITE, dissenting BLACKMUN, joined, KENNEDY, took decision Franklyn M. Gimbel, Milwaukee, Wis., petitioner. Charles A. Rothfeld, respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 This requires decide who may nonetheless have instructed, where warrants, United States Seventh Circuit upheld committing bribe. (1986). holding conflicts decisions other Courts taken variety approaches question.1 We granted certiorari resolve this conflict, we now reverse. 2 employed (SBA) Wisconsin, responsible SBA's "8A Program," aid small businesses. Under program, obtained contracts subcontracted them participants. then assist participants performing contracts. Midwest Knitting Mills, whose 8A Program. DeShazer's 3 In October 1984, complained customer repeatedly asked providing Program made early 1985, arranged resulting complaint. according requested. accept months later, restaurant gratuity 18 U.S.C. § 201(g). 4 Before limine defense. motion, charged. did, however, allow argue first line acts "were procurred [sic] overt principle witness Government, Mr. DeShazer."2 App. 131. 5 At trial, argued return cooperation matters. called loans issue result SBA-provided Midwest. also played tape recordings conversations between they discussed loan. duties SBA. stated were friends previously. According petitioner, dire financial straits when broached possibility needed quickly get rid money offering been hiding wife concerned she upset discovered secret; point did take soon, tempted spend it. 6 close moved "mistrial" Court's refusal noted "shaky best," ibid., rather premise denial ground, reaffirmed earlier matter law, subsequently guilty. affirmed entrapment: 8 "When pleads asserting intent, 'the deception [that implanted] design mind defendant.' v. Russell, 411 423, 436 [93 1637, 1645, 36 366] . (1973); Rodgers, 755 533, 550 (7th Cir.1985). per se never intent. see reason [petitioner] any plead these simultaneously." F.2d, 327. 9 certiorari, 480 945, 107 1601, 94 788 (1987), consider what circumstances instruction. hold even 10 Because parties agree basics developed little chronicle history detail. Suffice say consistently adhered view, enunciated Sorrells States, 287 435, 53 210, 77 L.Ed. 413 (1932), valid elements: government See Sherman 356 369, 376-378, 78 819, 822-823, 848 (1958); 435-436, 93 1644-1645, 366 Hampton 425 484, 489, 96 1646, 48 113 (1976). Predisposition, "the entrapment," supra, U.S., 433, S.Ct., 1643, focuses upon "unwary innocent" or, instead, criminal" readily availed himself opportunity perpetrate crime. Sherman, 372, 820; 436, 1645. generally jury, court. 377, 823. 11 insists 1644, logically conclude failed commit entrapped. asking "clai[m] right swear same breath originate him." Henry, 749 203, 214 (CA5 1984) (en banc) (Gee, dissenting). 12 As general proposition recognized exists favor. Stevenson 162 313, 16 839, 40 980 (1896); C. Torcia, Wharton's 538, (12th ed. 1976) (hereinafter Wharton). parallel rule applied context lesser included instruction, Fed. Rule Crim.Proc. 31(c); Keeble 412 205, 208, 1993, 1995, 844 Sansone 380 343, 349, 85 1004, 1009, 13 882 (1965). Stevenson, murder conviction arising out gunfight Indian Territory. entitle manslaughter decided well instructed self-defense. self-defense is, course, claim killed heat passion. appellate cases permit raising defenses. Johnson 138 U.S.App.D.C. 174, 179, 426 651, 656 (1970) (the rape permitted act place victim consented), cert. dism'd, 401 846, 91 1258, 28 523 (1971); Womack 119 40, 336 959 (1964). And state homicide accident self-defense, Wharton 545, 32. 14 points pleading authorized Procedure, authorization Procedure. 8(e)(2) provides relevant part: 15 "A party set forth statements alternately hypothetically, either count separate counts many claims regardless consistency based legal, equitable maritime grounds. All shall subject obligations 11." (Emphasis added). affecting trials, think, intended issues fact usually adduced court's instructions jury. Fed.Rule 11, Sorrells, 452, 216. only matters required specially pleaded notice alibi, 12.1, insanity 12.2. 17 argues trial. These concerns are, present context, yet inconsistency expressly do think necessarily sanctions perjury. Here wished testify attorney concluded otherwise, inducement. considered defenses, untruthfully. go so far charges occasion increase risk particularly practical consequences burdensome fears. Demma, 981, 985 (CA9 1975) banc), observed: 19 "Of very unlikely able prove without testifying and, course testifying, admitting When takes stand, forfeits remain silent, subjects rigors cross-examination, including impeachment, exposes Inconsistent testimony seriously impairs potentially destroys credibility. While necessary constitute time high risks make strategic choose so." 20 finally contends since "constitutional dimension," "relatively limited," id., Congress free whatever conditions category appropriate. Congress, spoken subject, left courts. simply persuaded availability justifies requirement such subject. 21 alternative basis affirming judgment below Of agents merely afforded facilities warrant But 22 Reversed 23 KENNEDY 24 concurring. 25 I join opinion. write separately joined written four opinions holdings 495, 1652, (1976) (BRENNAN, dissenting); (1973) (Douglas, 439, 1646 (Stewart, 378, 823, (1958) (Frankfurter, judgment). 453, 217, (1932) (Roberts, some governmental misconduct might sufficiently egregious violate due process, 431-432, 1642-1643, my differences statutory interpretation common Constitution. Were judging clean slate, still inclined adopt view focus exclusively am writing slate; definitively point. Therefore bow stare decisis, today reasoning 26 judgment. 27 concur rarely genuinely merits, genuine effect destroying credibility suffice protect interests justice. typical presenting before us here introduces unlawful acts, show inordinate nothing showings. alleged purely formal one, arises defined require (1) (2) directed person predisposed (3) causing If third added definition, counsel's argument cannot why essential, unless purpose rendering unavailable admission Surely does add anything substance findings must make, plus almost inevitably produce conclusion causality. To sure, object established, defend against; sense assume 29 My exclude (3). Whether not, seems me unnecessary achieve social policy fostered willing declare produces simultaneously denying assumes contradicted functionally essential 30 elsewhere, involve genuine, non inconsistency. testify, example, motel room illegal drugs changed hands, pressed government. kind here, self-penalizing. distinctive about special prophylactic rule. 31 whom BLACKMUN joins, dissenting. 32 stand flatly "for act." 128-130; later mistrial while fact, act, instigation. Today, holds sensible constitutes reversible error. reasons offers reaching persuasive, respectfully dissent. 33 * properly recognizes compelled acknowledges, Fifth Sixth Amendment conduct mount Ante, 66. yet, Constitution compel reversal below, does? 34 Certainly Act majority candidly admits, "Congress [at here], courts." Ibid. frankly notes contain authorizing Civ.Proc. 8(e)(2), authorization. 64. Indeed, scant authority cites ante, strongly suggestive just how extraordinary pleadings context.1 35 Nor reaches urged predominance lower recognizes, Circuits held, today, contend entrapped into remaining restrained their allowance divided along lines discusses 59—60, n. 1. Thus, neither Constitution, nor statute, Rules, bulk compels reverse conviction. sources decision. Instead, rests application "general [that] legally favor." 63. several reasons, proposition" inapposite here. II 37 First, unique nature valuable served having litigants inconsistent. Allowing tort owed duty care plaintiff, duty, preserves possible relief. It prevents formalities pleadings, rigid legal doctrines, standing way resolution dispute. 2A J. Moore, Lucas, & G. Grotheer, Moore's Practice ¶ 8.32, pp. 8-224—8-229 (2d 1987). true (such "self-defense" "provocation") truthfully facts leaving counsel out, 38 contrast, "is relatively limited defense"; "a committed proscribed offense." (1973). (as here) testifies with, plausible theory case; rather, proper accused lying. notion lie solicit attorney's executing strategy. Nix Whiteside, 475 157, 173, 106 988, 998, 89 123 respectable concluding legitimate end justice requiring entertain tactics, form odds testimony.2 39 tactics invites scourge effective system: past, steps combat perjury trials; permitting otherwise inadmissible prevent procuring acquittal via false testimony. See, e.g., Oregon Hass, 420 714, 720-723, 95 1215, 1220-1221, 43 570 (1975); Harris New York, 222, 225-226, 643, 645-646, (1971). Yet concedes "may occasion" 65. enough reject result. Worse still, majority's prognostication understatement. if—as suggests, ibid. measurably frequency always greater setting stakes higher. Britt North Carolina, 404 226, 238, 92 431, 400 (1971) Absent constitutional mandate trials particular way, taking minimize, increase, danger perjured After all, game sport. "[T]he [i]s search truth." 166, 994. observation applicable means affix our most serious judgments individual guilt innocence. fundamentally understanding win rationale states, oath, false. "Permitting equivalent sanctioning defendant." Note, Entrapment Denial Crime: Defense Inconsistency Rule, 1986 Duke L.J. 866, 883-884. 41 Finally, increased will—at least confusion among juries.3 courts rightly warned likely "I it" lawyer "he it, tricked it." Dorta, 783 1179, 1182 (CA4 1986). Creating enable peculiar rejects facts. endorsed efforts prevail playing "shell games" jury; "[a] entitlement luck lawless decisionmaker." Strickland Washington, 466 668, 695, 104 2052, 2068, 80 674 (1984). Nor, added, baffled decisionmaker. III 42 Ultimately, knows latter, doing former. Nothing counsels result—let alone Hence Two adopted approach Circuit. Hill, 655 512, 514 (CA3 1981); Whitley, 734 1129, 1139 (CA6 1984). Four ruled affirmatively desires Annese, 631 1041, 1046-1047 (CA1 1980); Mayo, 705 62, 72-73 (CA2 1983); 1181 (CA4), denied, 477 905 (1986); Mora, 768 1197, 1198-1199 (CA10 1985), 474 1083, 856, 88 895 One declared raised evidence. Smith, 757 1161, 1169 (CA11 1985). Another hybrid contest arguing 203 banc); 981 Hansford 112 359, 303 219 (1962). note within Circuits, contradictory pursuing apparently introduced planned adduce claim. explicitly outside area, Whittaker 268, 269, 281 631, 632 (1960), others receptive strategy, see, Ervin, 1331, 1334 1971); Blunt 131 306, 312, 12, 1283, 1289, (1968). Given rarity reported question, drawing prevailing practice difficult. 878-879, 127. 1181-1182 1986); 1167-1168 1985); 214-216 Again, endures caused For thing, reliability obviously important concern civil. cases, option ordering complete verdict form, thus minimizing errors 49(a). similar provision, cf. 31, "as verdicts disfavored cases," Buishas, 791 1310, 1317 (CA7

Category: 0