Entrapment in the Louisiana Law
Entrapment refers to a defense to criminal charges on the basis that the defendant only committed the said act because of being subjected to coercion or harassment by a government official. Thus, it is suggested that without pressure occurring, the crime under question would have never been committed initially. The defense of entrapment is difficult to assert in court because the defendant has the burden of establishing that the idea and impetus for the crime were introduced by government officials. Besides, it is also required to prove that the defendant was not already predisposed or willing to commit the crime.
The entrapment defense is applicable only to cases in which government officials are involved, such as police officers, FBI officials, members of the state or federal government, and others, excluding private individuals. Finally, the defendant in a criminal case must establish that entrapment took place because such a defense is considered affirmative.
The Louisiana law is consistent with the federal law on entrapment. It highlights that “an entrapment is perpetrated when a law enforcement official or a person acts in cooperation with such an official, for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, solicits, encourages, or otherwise induces another person to engage in conduct constituting such offense when he is not then otherwise disposed to so” (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019, p. 51).
In cases involving entrapment, it is necessary to draw “a line between the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal” (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019, p. 52). Thus, in contrast to creating opportunity, entrapment takes place when a government official urges, harasses, or encourages using other methods of pressure to persuade an individual to commit a crime that they would not otherwise commit.
Significantly, special operations that government officials may set up do not fall under the category of entrapment. For instance, law enforcement officers can develop a sting operation for suspected criminals to commit a burglary, and one of the strategies may involve the officers pretending to be fellow criminals and working in cooperation with their suspects. In such cases, if the defendant under question completes the burglary on the basis of information given to them by undercover officers, this is not considered entrapment. Instead, the officers pursued their objective of arresting burglars and created an opportunity upon which defendants acted and committed the said crime, making officers’ efforts entirely legal.
In contrast, if undercover law enforcement officers threaten the defendant and coerce them to commit the burglary under the pressure of physical or other punishment, even though the individual appears uninterested in doing so, such actions may be considered entrapment. Therefore, entrapment goes beyond the opportunity and involves the efforts of government officials to force crime to occur.
Deciding whether a defendant in a crime was forced or harassed into committing the act under question is a complicated task that involves a thorough evaluation of any influencing circumstances. In some states, including Louisiana, an objective standard is used for evaluating entrapment. In this instance, the criminal defendant must show that the tactics that the government official used for targeting them were such that any reasonable individuals would have been prompted to commit the crime under question. Other states use a subjective standard for entrapment assessment, under which the jury or court weighs the actions of law enforcement officials against the predisposition of criminal defendants to commit a crime. Such a standard is much harder than meeting the objective type.
In court cases, decisions regarding whether entrapment has occurred are usually addressed to the jury. However, in Jacobson v. United States, the Court found entrapment as a matter of law. In the case, the defendant purchased pornographic materials involving children after being “the target of 26 months of repeated mailings and communications from Government agents and fictitious organizations” (United States Department of Justice Archives, 2020). In the view of the Court, the government was unsuccessful at proving beyond reasonable doubt that Jacobson’s predisposition was “independent and not the product of the attention that the government had directed at him” (United States Department of Justice Archives, 2020).
The unusual circumstances of Jacobson v. United States set the case apart from other sting operations that tend to involve fewer contacts with a defendant over a shorter time period. Therefore, it is essential to note that the use of undercover information or agents, including deception stemming from them, could encourage due process violation, even though cases such as United States v. Russel leave such a possibility open. Entrapment is likely to remain a challenging defense in court due to either the direct or indirect impact of facts and circumstances that do not allow for it to stand.
References
United States Department of Justice Archives. (2020). Recent entrapment cases. Web.
United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana. (2019). Gary L. Workman versus Jason Kent, Warden. Web.