Court Opinion

ID: 9572638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:43:25.145522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:43.320653
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(concurring). I concur in the adherence to the objective theory of entrapment and in the reversal. Having in mind that prisoners are not at liberty to communicate with authorities or persons in the "free world” without running the risk of detection, and that they are vulnerable to oppression by their overseers1 and other inmates, methods that would be unacceptable in other settings *98are tolerable to root out venality in a prison setting.

 Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

 See United States v Russell, 411 US 423; 93 S Ct 1637; 36 L Ed 2d 366 (1973).
Although a plurality in Hampton v United States, 425 US 484; 96 S Ct 1646; 48 L Ed 2d 113 (1976), would have made the due process defense unavailable to a predisposed defendant, a majority of the justices expressly disagreed. Subsequently, lower federal courts have recognized the viability of the due process defense. See, e.g., United States v Bradley, 820 F2d 3 (CA 1, 1987); United States v Dyman, 739 F2d 762 (CA 2, 1984), cert den 469 US 1193 (1983); United States v Twigg, 588 F2d 373 (CA 3, 1978); United States v Hunt, 749 F2d 1078 (CA 4, 1984), cert den 472 US 1018 (1985); United States v Tobias, 662 F2d 381 (CA 5, 1981); United States v Brown, 635 F2d 1207 (CA 6, 1980); United States v Belzer, 743 F2d 1213 (CA 7, 1984), cert den 469 US 1110 (1985); United States v Mazzella, 768 F2d 235 (CA 8, 1985), cert den 474 US 1006 (1985); United States v Prairie, 572 F2d 1316 (CA 9, 1978); United States v Spivey, 508 F2d 146 (CA 10, 1975), cert den 421 US 949 (1975); United States v Kelly, 228 US App DC 55; 707 F2d 1460 (1983), cert den 464 US 908 (1983).