31:
453:
his first visit to the laboratory on
December 7, 1969. And when the laboratory was searched pursuant to a search warrant on January 10, 1970, two additional bottles labeled phenyl-2-propanone were seized. Thus, the facts in the record amply demonstrate that the propanone used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine not only could have been obtained without the intervention of Shapiro but was in fact obtained by these defendants.
660:
525:
idea that the defendant's conduct or state of mind had any bearing, since arguing entrapment by its very nature concedes commission of the act: "He may not have originated the precise plan or the precise details, but he was "predisposed" in the sense that he has proved to be quite capable of committing the crime".
536:, he expressed concern that a predisposition test would needlessly deter defendants who might otherwise have a case based on the behavior of the government agents involved from doing so, since it would allow the prosecution to bring up prior bad acts that would be prejudicial to the jury and otherwise
506:
He insisted no conviction in such a case should be allowed. "Federal agents play a debased role when they become the instigators of the crime, or partners in its commission, or the creative brain behind the illegal scheme. That is what the federal agent did here when he furnished the accused with one
469:
and saw no reason to change now. He reiterated previous justices' argument against it from those decisions, and rapped the lower court: "We think that the decision of the Court of
Appeals in this case quite unnecessarily introduces an unmanageably subjective standard which is contrary to the holdings
452:
The record discloses that although the propanone was difficult to obtain, it was by no means impossible. The defendants admitted making the drug both before and after those batches made with the propanone supplied by
Shapiro. Shapiro testified that he saw an empty bottle labeled phenyl-2-propanone on
290:
Russell had admitted to that during his appeal, but he and his lawyers argued that the entrapment defense should focus entirely on what the federal operatives did and not his state of mind. They asked the Court to overrule two previous cases that had established this "subjective" test in favor of the
457:
The next sentence has reverberated around discourse on the entrapment defense ever since: "...we may some day be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes
409:
Connolly and
Russell both argued that, in their cases, it was the government agent's assistance in their enterprise — and only that — which had made the specific offenses they were tried for possible. The jury rejected that argument, following instead the subjective entrapment standard, holding that
364:
John
Connolly did not appear. His brother and Russell were found guilty on all five counts. Both raised the entrapment defense, arguing that while they would have made and sold meth regardless of Shapiro's involvement, his supplying of an ingredient that, while legal, was difficult to get due to the
448:
Even if we were to surmount the difficulties attending the notion that due process of law can be embodied in fixed rules, and those attending respondent's particular formulation, the rule he proposes would not appear to be of significant benefit to him. For, on the record presented, it appears that
544:
Stated another way, this subjective test means that the
Government is permitted to entrap a person with a criminal record or bad reputation, and then to prosecute him for the manufactured crime, confident that his record or reputation itself will be enough to show that he was predisposed to commit
524:
sought to make an argument for the objective test, calling it "the only one truly consistent with the underlying rationale of the defense". Like the concurrences in the earlier two opinions, he argued that a judge, not a jury, should decide whether law enforcement crossed the line. He rejected the
401:
369 (1958), another entrapment case involving an undercover drug investigation, the Court had chosen to ground entrapment in the question of whether it could be established that the defendant had a "predisposition" to commit the crime absent government involvement. This has become known as the
330:
John
Connolly gave Shapiro from his most recent output, and Patrick Connolly said they had been able to make three pounds of meth since May of that year. Shapiro also observed an empty P2P bottle at the house. Two days later, he returned with 100 g of P2P. While he mostly watched as the trio made
549:
He next turned to the specifics of the case. Like
Douglas, he argued that the government's supplying the propanone, a chemical made scarce but not illegal by its own efforts, and then turning around and prosecuting Russell and the Connollys for the methamphetamine made with that propanone, and
323:. His investigation led him to Richard Russell and John and Patrick Connolly, the lab's proprietors. On December 7, they met and he represented himself to them as a member of a group which wanted to control meth production and distribution in the region. He offered to supply them with
346:
A month later, he returned and asked
Connolly if he was still interested in doing business. Connolly said yes, but that he would not be able to sell him any as he had gotten some bottles of P2P elsewhere and was busy making another batch. Three days later, Shapiro returned with a
478:... here are circumstances when the use of deceit is the only practicable law enforcement technique available. It is only when the Government's deception actually implants the criminal design in the mind of the defendant that the defense of entrapment comes into play."
351:. Among other items, he seized two bottles of P2P, one an empty 500-g container, the other a partially full 100-g one (not the one he had originally given them). All three were arrested and charged with five separate violations of federal drug laws.
286:
manufacturing operation, and assisted in the process, the Court followed its earlier rulings on the subject and found that the defendant had a predisposition to make and sell illegal drugs whether he worked with the government or not.
587:
did not overcome evidence showing predisposition to commit crime. Rehnquist backs away slightly from "outrageous government conduct" here, maintaining that defendants must show a specific violation of constitutional rights or
666:
327:, a necessary ingredient in meth manufacture which had become difficult to obtain, in return for half of the resulting output. He insisted beforehand on being shown the lab and given a sample of what they could produce.
495:. "Supplying the chemical ingredient used in the manufacture of this batch of 'speed' made the United States an active participant in the unlawful activity". He pointed to an appellate decision that had thrown out a
402:"subjective" test of entrapment since it involves evaluating the defendant's state of mind. It was somewhat controversial in both decisions, even though they were unanimous in overturning the convictions, because
101:
365:
bureau's own efforts to dissuade chemical companies from selling it and requiring that those who did sell only to buyers with a valid manufacturer's license, constituted entrapment as a matter of law.
908:
545:
the offense anyway ... In my view, a person's alleged "predisposition" to crime should not expose him to government participation in the criminal transaction that would be otherwise unlawful.
829:
801:
776:
754:
713:
688:
647:
624:
601:
576:
394:
380:
343:. Patrick Connolly finished the rest of the process, and Shapiro stopped by the next morning to pick up his half of the meth. He also bought a portion of the remainder for $ 60.
120:
72:
419:
299:
that had been or not been violated. While he backed away from it in a later opinion, his words have become a rallying point for advocates of the objective entrapment standard.
116:
270:, 411 U.S. 423 (1973), is a Supreme Court case dealing with the entrapment defense. The court split 5-4 and maintained the subjective theory that had first been adopted in
422:
agreed that the conduct of the government agents trumped any inclination to make and deal meth and overturned the conviction. Prosecutors petitioned the
Supreme Court for
295:
pondered the possibility that what has become known as "outrageous government conduct" might force a judicial hand in an entrapment case regardless of any specific
491:"In my view, the fact that the chemical ingredient supplied by the federal agent might have been obtained from other sources is quite irrelevant", replied Justice
444:
After reviewing the case and Russell's arguments for adopting a new standard for entrapment, Rehnquist first pointed to practical problems specific to the case:
913:
903:
406:
in both cases had criticized it sharply and called instead for an "objective" standard which concentrated instead on the behavior of law enforcement.
458:
to obtain a conviction." But, the justice continued, "the instant case is distinctly not of that breed". Later, he acknowledged the possibility of "
918:
308:
614:; prosecution must show beyond reasonable doubt that defendant was predisposed to commit crime prior to any contact by government agents.
554:
that batch, was entrapment no matter how predisposed the three were or whether they were able to obtain propanone from other sources.
35:
465:
He went on to reject the notion of changing the entrapment standard, saying the Court had already reaffirmed the subjective test in
312:
500:
583:
484 (1976). Defendant's belief that he and government informant were selling legal substance and claiming it to be
608:
530 (1992). Prior acts by defendant later made illegal but legal at the time do not demonstrate predisposition
796:
683:
596:
459:
375:
771:
708:
571:
389:
436:
For the first time in an entrapment case, not only did the Court uphold a conviction, but split its decision.
510:
320:
876:
738:
108:
180:
840:
833:
805:
780:
758:
717:
692:
651:
605:
580:
398:
384:
296:
124:
64:
858:
537:
208:
492:
403:
172:
867:
315:), was assigned to locate an illegal methamphetamine ("meth") production lab believed to be on
558:
292:
216:
196:
849:
340:
164:
387:
435 (1932), the case where it had first recognized entrapment as a valid defense, and
283:
808:
783:
720:
695:
654:
521:
496:
348:
316:
204:
184:
897:
336:
324:
529:
67:
104:; conviction reversed, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 459
589:
192:
424:
279:
275:
146:
83:
332:
79:
885:
610:
145:
Government agent's active participation in criminal conspiracy was not
507:
of the chemical ingredients needed to manufacture the unlawful drug."
584:
102:
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
291:"objective" one they advocated. It declined to do so. But Justice
105:
30:
449:
he cannot fit within the terms of the very rule he proposes.
667:
public domain material from this U.S government document
410:
they were predisposed to commit the crime in any event.
335:, he and Russell helped pick up some pieces of dropped
909:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
625:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 411
420:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
307:
In late 1969, Joe Shapiro, an agent for the federal
233:
Rehnquist, joined by Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell
331:their meth, at one point, according to later court
253:
245:
237:
229:
224:
153:
139:
131:
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
23:
8:
678:
676:
20:
636:
309:Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
278:federal agent had helped procure a key
18:1973 United States Supreme Court case
7:
249:Stewart, joined by Brennan, Marshall
274:, 287 U.S. 435 (1932). Although an
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
914:United States entrapment case law
904:United States Supreme Court cases
836:423 (1973) is available from:
259:Existing entrapment jurisprudence
658:
503:had supplied the paper and ink.
499:conviction where the undercover
54:United States v. Richard Russell
29:
313:Drug Enforcement Administration
919:1973 in United States case law
1:
513:signed this opinion as well.
311:(later to become part of the
460:overzealous law enforcement
935:
886:Oyez (oral argument audio)
665:This article incorporates
241:Douglas, joined by Brennan
797:Jacobson v. United States
741: (9th Cir. 1972).
684:Sorrells v. United States
597:Jacobson v. United States
376:Sorrells v. United States
272:Sorrells v. United States
258:
158:
144:
28:
826:United States v. Russell
772:Hampton v. United States
751:United States v. Russell
734:United States v. Russell
709:Sherman v. United States
644:United States v. Russell
572:Hampton v. United States
565:Subsequent jurisprudence
390:Sherman v. United States
267:United States v. Russell
43:Argued February 27, 1973
24:United States v. Russell
325:phenyl-2-propanone(P2P)
547:
455:
303:Background of the case
181:William J. Brennan Jr.
45:Decided April 24, 1973
542:
446:
100:Defendant convicted,
739:459 F.2d 671
877:Library of Congress
209:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
135:Conviction affirmed
78:93 S. Ct. 1637; 36
493:William O. Douglas
339:and put it into a
173:William O. Douglas
169:Associate Justices
559:Thurgood Marshall
470:of this Court in
293:William Rehnquist
263:
262:
217:William Rehnquist
197:Thurgood Marshall
926:
890:
884:
881:
875:
872:
866:
863:
857:
854:
848:
845:
839:
812:
793:
787:
768:
762:
748:
742:
736:
730:
724:
705:
699:
680:
671:
662:
661:
641:
561:joined Stewart.
165:Warren E. Burger
154:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
934:
933:
929:
928:
927:
925:
924:
923:
894:
893:
888:
882:
879:
873:
870:
864:
861:
855:
852:
846:
843:
837:
821:
816:
815:
794:
790:
769:
765:
761:911 (1972).
749:
745:
732:
731:
727:
706:
702:
681:
674:
659:
642:
638:
633:
621:
567:
519:
511:William Brennan
489:
484:
442:
434:
416:
371:
362:
357:
305:
284:methamphetamine
282:for an illegal
207:
195:
183:
127:911 (1972).
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
932:
930:
922:
921:
916:
911:
906:
896:
895:
892:
891:
859:Google Scholar
820:
819:External links
817:
814:
813:
788:
763:
743:
725:
700:
672:
635:
634:
632:
629:
628:
627:
620:
617:
616:
615:
593:
566:
563:
522:Potter Stewart
518:
515:
501:Secret Service
497:counterfeiting
488:
485:
483:
480:
441:
438:
433:
430:
415:
412:
370:
367:
361:
358:
356:
353:
349:search warrant
317:Whidbey Island
304:
301:
261:
260:
256:
255:
251:
250:
247:
243:
242:
239:
235:
234:
231:
227:
226:
222:
221:
220:
219:
205:Harry Blackmun
185:Potter Stewart
170:
167:
162:
156:
155:
151:
150:
142:
141:
137:
136:
133:
129:
128:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
931:
920:
917:
915:
912:
910:
907:
905:
902:
901:
899:
887:
878:
869:
860:
851:
842:
841:CourtListener
835:
831:
827:
823:
822:
818:
810:
807:
803:
799:
798:
792:
789:
785:
782:
778:
774:
773:
767:
764:
760:
756:
752:
747:
744:
740:
735:
729:
726:
722:
719:
715:
711:
710:
704:
701:
697:
694:
690:
686:
685:
679:
677:
673:
670:
668:
657: (1973).
656:
653:
649:
645:
640:
637:
630:
626:
623:
622:
618:
613:
612:
607:
603:
599:
598:
594:
591:
586:
582:
578:
574:
573:
569:
568:
564:
562:
560:
555:
553:
546:
541:
539:
535:
531:
526:
523:
516:
514:
512:
508:
504:
502:
498:
494:
486:
481:
479:
477:
473:
468:
463:
461:
454:
450:
445:
439:
437:
431:
429:
427:
426:
421:
413:
411:
407:
405:
400:
396:
392:
391:
386:
382:
378:
377:
368:
366:
359:
354:
352:
350:
344:
342:
338:
337:aluminum foil
334:
328:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
302:
300:
298:
294:
288:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
268:
257:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
225:Case opinions
223:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
171:
168:
166:
163:
161:Chief Justice
160:
159:
157:
152:
148:
143:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
107:
103:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
825:
811: (1992).
795:
791:
786: (1976).
770:
766:
750:
746:
733:
728:
723: (1958).
707:
703:
698: (1932).
682:
664:
643:
639:
609:
595:
570:
557:Brennan and
556:
551:
548:
543:
538:inadmissible
533:
530:Owen Roberts
527:
520:
509:
505:
490:
475:
471:
466:
464:
456:
451:
447:
443:
435:
423:
417:
408:
404:concurrences
388:
374:
372:
363:
355:Lower courts
345:
329:
306:
289:
271:
266:
265:
264:
254:Laws applied
212:
200:
188:
176:
112:
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
590:due process
193:Byron White
117:9th Circuit
898:Categories
631:References
425:certiorari
321:Washington
280:ingredient
276:undercover
147:entrapment
132:Subsequent
113:certiorari
84:U.S. LEXIS
82:366; 1973
333:testimony
119:granted,
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
824:Text of
619:See also
534:Sorrells
482:Dissents
472:Sorrells
440:Majority
432:Decision
230:Majority
111:(1972);
850:Findlaw
517:Stewart
487:Douglas
476:Sherman
467:Sherman
246:Dissent
238:Dissent
140:Holding
115:to the
889:
883:
880:
874:
871:
868:Justia
865:
862:
856:
853:
847:
844:
838:
800:,
775:,
737:,
712:,
687:,
663:
646:,
611:per se
585:heroin
414:Appeal
297:rights
215:
213:·
211:
203:
201:·
199:
191:
189:·
187:
179:
177:·
175:
832:
804:
779:
757:
716:
691:
650:
604:
579:
528:Like
397:
383:
369:Issue
360:Trial
341:flask
123:
97:Prior
834:U.S.
806:U.S.
781:U.S.
759:U.S.
718:U.S.
693:U.S.
652:U.S.
606:U.S.
581:U.S.
552:only
474:and
418:The
399:U.S.
385:U.S.
125:U.S.
106:F.2d
73:more
65:U.S.
63:411
830:411
809:530
802:504
784:484
777:452
755:409
721:369
714:356
696:435
689:287
655:423
648:411
602:504
577:452
532:in
462:".
395:356
381:287
373:In
319:in
121:409
109:671
68:423
900::
828:,
753:,
675:^
600:,
575:,
540:.
428:.
393:,
379:,
86:79
669:.
592:.
149:.
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.