Document: 356 U.S. 369 78 S.Ct. 819 2 L.Ed.2d 848 Joseph George SHERMAN, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 87. Argued Jan. 16, 1958. Decided May 19, Mr. Henry A. Lowenberg, New York City, for the petitioner. James W. Knapp, Washington, D.C., respondent. Chief Justice WARREN delivered opinion Court. 1 The issue before us is whether petitioner's conviction should be set aside on ground that as a matter law defense entrapment was established. Petitioner convicted under an indictment charging three sales narcotics in violation 21 U.S.C. § 174, U.S.C.A. 174. A previous had been reversed account improper instructions to entrapment. Cir., 200 F.2d 880. In second trial, first, claim entrapment: agent Federal Government induced him take part illegal transactions when otherwise he would not have done so. late August 1951, Kalchinian, government informer, first met petitioner at doctor's office where apparently both were being treated cured addition. Several accidental meetings followed, either or pharmacy filled their prescriptions from doctor. From mere greetings, conversation progressed discussion mutual experiences and problems, including attempts overcome addiction narcotics. Finally Kalchinian asked if knew good source He supply with because responding treatment. tried avoid issue. Not until after number repetitions request, predicated Kalchinian's presumed suffering, did finally acquiesce. times thereafter obtained quantity which shared Kalchinian. Each time told total cost twenty-five dollars owed fifteen dollars. informer thus bore his share plus taxi other expenses necessary obtain drug. After several such informed agents Bureau Narcotics another seller them. On occasions during November 1951. observed give return money supplied by Government. 3 At trial factual convinced unwilling person commit criminal act already predisposed exhibited only natural hesitancy one acquainted trade. went jury,1 resulted. sentenced imprisonment ten years. Court Appeals Second Circuit affirmed. 240 949. We granted certiorari. 353 935, 77 812, 758. 4 Sorrells v. United States, 287 435, 53 210, L.Ed. 413, this firmly recognized federal courts. intervening years no way detracted principles underlying decision. function enforcement prevention crime apprehension criminals. Manifestly, does include manufacturing crime. Criminal activity stealth strategy are weapons arsenal police officer. However, 'A different question presented design originates officials government, they implant mind innocent disposition alleged offense induce its commission order may prosecute.' page 442, 212. become objectionable methods coerced confession unlawful search. Congress could intended statutes enforced tempting persons into violations. 5 fact 'merely afford opportunities facilities not' constitute Entrapment occurs conduct 'the product creative activity' law-enforcement officials. (Emphasis supplied.) See pages 441, 451, 212, 216. To determine has established, line must drawn between trap unwary criminal. courts make determination outlined Sorrells. hand, accused examine agent; will subjected 'appropriate searching inquiry own predisposition' bearing innocence. 6 conclude evidence established law. so holding, we choosing conflicting witnesses, nor judging credibility. Aside recalling who Government's witness, called witnesses. reach our conclusion undisputed testimony prosecution's 7 It patently clear himself testified that, believing undergoing cure addiction, nonetheless sought persuade words accidental, yet recurring, meetings, ensuing conversations concerning regard then resort sympathy. request enough, tells additional ones overcome, refusal, evasiveness, achieve capitulation. procured but also habit. Finally, assured catch, authorities close net. cannot disown insist it responsible actions. Although paid, active recently instigatory least two prosecutions.2 Undoubtedly impetus achievements 1951 charges illegally selling sentenced.3 makes difforence occurred series sales. They independent acts subsequent inducement course inducement. charge case admitted never bothered about made contact use dissassociation through ignorance. 8 claiming evinced 'ready complaisance' accede request. record past convictions, discuss following paragraph, unsupported. There When apartment searched arrest, found. significant even profit any sale Kalchinian.4 characterization wariness fill evidentiary void.5 9 show ready willing sell opportunity present itself convictions. 1942 narcotics; 1946 possessing nine-year-old five-year-old possession insufficient prove readiness approached him, particularly assume trying habit time. 10 bar illustrates evil designed overcome. entices someone attempting carrying out returning use. Selecting proper time, agent. set-up accepted without manner encountered seller. Thus plays weaknesses party beguiles committing crimes attempted.6 Law require this. 11 suggested overturning reassess doctrine according announced separate Roberts 453, 217, 413. do decide grounds rejected majority and, far shows, raised here below parties us. ordinarily issues there reason vary practice case. 12 important procedure decided benefit argument parties, asserted although defendant crime, reply showing defendant's due persuasion agents. handicap placed prosecution obvious.7 Furthermore, position entrapment—now limited what did—should judge, jury. Sorrells, them, Courts since unanimously concluded unless can law, entrapped jury determining guilt innocence accused.8 13 dispose entail overruling leading decision brushing possibility creating more problems than supposedly solving. 14 judgment remanded District dismiss indictment. 15 Reversed remanded. 16 FRANKFURTER, whom DOUGLAS, HARLAN, BRENNAN join, concurring result. 17 agreeing facts I result route Court's. 18 court clearly sustained officers was, apparently, Woo Wai 223 F. 412. Yet basis defense, affording guidance application particular circumstances, much doubt today over forty ago, decisive many prosecutions. lower continued gropingly express feeling outrage enforcers brought recognition instance, formulated duty construct justifying guiding emotion instinct. 19 Today's promote judicial desideratum, fails solid foundation decisions criticism learned writers shown needed.1 Instead accepts re-examination theory espoused strong protest Roberts, speaking Brandeis Stone, JJ., well himself. ignored rest narrow each case, failed penetrating effort define satisfactory generalization, see, e.g., States Becker, 62 1007 (L. Hand, J.), proof prevailing ought deemed last word. kind attempt explanation sound instinct counsels. forego clarity thought, confused inadequate analysis too apt gradually lead diverges true ends pursued.2 20 surely sheer fiction suggest informers 'Congress violations.' these cases raising claims entrapment, legislative intention extracted statute precisely engaged. That includes all elements criminality. Without compulsion 'knowingly,' requisite, violated statutory command. If relieved usual punitive consequences, described. less temptation, tempter private informer. refuse convict defendant, falls outside proscription statute, because, admitted, employed behalf bring countenanced. As Holmes said Olmstead 277 438, 470, 48 564, 575, 72 944 (dissenting), connection, 'It desirable criminals detected, end available used. foster pay crimes, means obtained. * (F)or my think some escape play ignoble part.' Insofar used instrumentalities administration justice, obligation face against lawless violate rationally vindicated standards sustain effectuating exercise jurisdiction formulate apply 'proper courts,' McNabb 318 332, 341, 63 608, 613, 87 819, goes beyond court. Public confidence fair honorable upon ultimately depends rule transcending value stake. 22 formulation conflict violated, involve initiation policy disregarding qualifying framed Congress. false choice put fall within convicted. wholly directed defining prohibiting substantive concerned expresses purpose, permissive prohibitory, regarding tolerated detection silent admissibility evidence. enacted, however, certain presumppositions legal role system formulating justice specifically legislated end. Specific fitted antecedent system. 23 might thought largely academic court's finding derives supervisory justice; substantially same considerations sustained. But look remotely contemplation enactment distort analysis. run risk, furthermore, shirk responsibility necessarily keeping, truly silent, accommodate dangers overzealous civilized adequate counter ingenuity modern reasons actually underlie easily lost sight pursuit fictitious congressional intent. 24 crucial question, easy answer, direct revealed standards, common feelings respond, governmental power. For answer irrelevant ask 'intention' originated officers, repeats purports unrevealing tests. Of every committed police, occurred. perfectly decoy letter Court, Grimm 156 604, 39 550, effect simply furnished enough enable conviction. 25 referred to, therefore, general predisposition commit, whenever arise, solicited, often reputation, activities, prior disposition. danger prejudice situation, submitted disposed verdict guilty innocent, evident. substantial risk spite instructions, allow bad reputation weigh specific stands charged. test looks character rather loses No inclinations criminality, depths sunk estimation society, ensnare further advanced society. And reverses draw convincing picture conduct. Permissible concerned; suspects solicited manner, go jail very suspicions, reasonable unreasonable, activities. sympathy, friendship, exorbitant gain, forth, offender ordinary law-abiding citizen. contrary view runs afoul fundamental equality espouse notion dealing classes anything goes. confronted inordinate inducements, ignored. Past forever outlaw open practices, aimed securing repeated conviction, citizen protected. whole ameliorative hopes penology prison strongly counsel view. 26 This mean detect those engaged occasion arise. Such indeed obligation. holding inducements likely others normally self-struggle resist temptations. shifts attention likelihood, objectively considered, entrap objective subject permits, regulating lacking reasonableness suspicions judged retrospectively appraised. draws directly intuition led instance outlawing 'entrapment' prosecutorial instrument. power abused constituted downfall who, left themselves, obeyed Human nature weak sufficiently beset temptations adding them generating 27 What condemned, picked new situations arise involving detection. involved persistent solicitation obvious reluctance, appeals sentiments aroused reminiscences companions arms World War. Particularly reprehensible requests hesitancy, coupled sympathy based addiction. Evidence setting took place highly relevant effect, consider involved, secrecy difficulty detection, business usually carried on. 28 convincingly urged judgment, blocking off areas impermissible conduct, appropriate 'The protection functions preservation purity temple belongs province alone protect prostitution dealt stage proceedings attention.' 457, 218 (separate opinion). Equally consideration verdict, settle official future. Only court, gradual evolution explicit accumulated precedents, degree certainty wise demands. here. 'Q. your (Kalchinian's) job, not, while you working try somebody narcotics, isn't true? 'A. No, wasn't job kind. Do remember (asked trial) . you, correct? say yes that.' that? said, let stand just way. So testify now telling truth? nobody hired me that. inferred, meant thing question.' R. 100. promise, agreement, though, cooperate received suspended sentence court? (Kalchinian). promised sentence? Yes, sentence.' 99. 1952 statement Attorney Judge cooperative Goivernment. 89, 98. point previously amount unspecified price. characterized price 'not quite' paid 80. interest note appeal came discussed far. Sherman, 880, 883. Cf. Lutfy 198 760, 34 A.L.R.2d 879; Wall 65 993; Butts 273 35, A.L.R. 143. Learned Hand stated: 'Indeed, seem probable (to inducement), impossible ever secure convictions offences consist secret.' 882. example, have, affirming held properly Lindenfeld, 142 829; Brandenburg, 162 980; Demos 205 596; Nero 189 515; Cerone, 150 382; Louie Hung 111 325; Ryles 183 944; Cratty 82 U.S.App.D.C. 236, 163 844. instructions. 880; Sawyer, 210 169; 33 Yep 83 41. Excellent discussions problem found Mikell, Doctrine Courts, 90 U.Pa.L.Rev. 245; Donnelly, Judicial Control Informants, Spies, Stool Pigeons, Agent Provocateurs, 60 Yale L.J. 1091, 1098 1115; Note, Officials, Col.L.Rev. 1067. rigid restrict merely arguments counsel. Presumably certiorari review solution, real importance argued counsel, perpetuate down reargument re-examining rule.

Category: 0