An interesting story

[RJT]

http://weaponsman.com/?p=14082

[doubloon]

More evidence the government is here to help.

[whiterussian1974]

Alot of people don't know that Fed Agents have Exemption from Entrapment Exclusion.
This means that if a Fed Agent or someone working w them hands a 14 yr old a pound of modeling clay and has them place it in a Public place, then they can arrest him and claim that they stopped another Domestic Terror Plot.

Here in TX we can arrest people for having a candle. Possession of Schedule II Controlled Substance (Analogue.) At Trial if the Prosecutor can demonstrate that the candle wax COULD have been sold to someone believing that it was crack, the case is made.
Same for bag of flour, etc.

Don't you feel safer knowing that we are all Felons who simply haven't been rounded up yet? Using Google-based PreCrime algorythems, just shopping online makes us all Dom Terrorists.
Have you seen the "Is this Legal" Thread where members posted screemshots of eBay/Amazon suggesting that they buy all the parts needed to make suppressors? Just search for a flashlight, tap, etc and they suggest you buy these parts.

It reminds me of the Chappel Show episode where Dave held up a box of cake mix and said that you could buy Nuclear Suitcase bombs at the Corner Store. "Here's some Yellow Cake that I bought down the street!"

[whiterussian1974]

This is a perfect example of why High Schools should teach 1 semester of Criminal Law and 1 of Civil Law. I took both Civics and Business Law back then.

Since kids are liable to be tried as Adults in Fed Court from age 14 up, they should be taught what they are responsible for knowing and doing.

Yet instead, Gov't making Sealed Legislation where Citizens don't/can't know what the Laws are or how to behave. So many laws are counter-intuitive, counter-common sense, counter-Christian Ideals.

The Gov't has made us all Undocumented Felons who have to view every person in our lives as a Threat. Two Generations ago children denouncing their parents was seen as horrendous. Now it's everyday common.

Give someone a ride; you're unknowingly transporting Controlled Substance. Hire Entertainment for a party; be accused of Racism and Rape/Torture (Duke LaCrosse Team.)

Yet what happens to Gov't Agents? Reelected as DA, Al Sharpton has his own TV Show, Texas DA withholds exculpatory evidence to get man convicted of Murder and Sentenced to Death.

Why don't we hold Gov't Agents to a HIGHER standard than the Forcibly Ignorant Masses?

[danb35]

Alot of people don't know that Fed Agents have Exemption from Entrapment Exclusion.

They (hopefully) don't know it because it isn't true. Entrapment is a valid defense at both the federal and the state levels. However, at both levels, it's an extremely difficult defense to establish. The article doesn't indicate whether he attempted that defense or not, but based on what's stated there (certainly a one-sided account), it seems reasonable for him to have argued. See http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_ ... m00645.htm for what DOJ has to say about entrapment.

[whiterussian1974]

danb35, I'm reading that link, but meantime the victim DID argue that he felt threatened and video evidence showed that he stated that he didn't want to buy the Illegal Item. Only after being coersed by an "Armed Badguy" did he cave to pressure.
That said, as a Lawyer he knows the 3C's. He should have never put himself into a position where a person of questionable morals could pressure him into accepting possession of an illegal item.
We expect 19yr olds in foreign lands to be International Human Rights Attorneys, and hold them liable for understanding the nuances of their Commanders Orders.
Why do we give breaks to well educated highly intelligent persons, but expect 17yr old illiterate Ghetto and Trailer Court kids to behave as though they have Jurisprudence Doctorates?
(If they are illiterate by choice, that's their problem. But 65IQ should be taken into consideration.)

[whiterussian1974]

1st off, thanks danb35 for the online Resource. It's very informative.

Next, after reading the manual (not actual Laws) it seems that all a person has to do in order to use the Defense is sit in Prison hoping that the US Sup Court will grant Certiorari to hear their case. Then wind their way back through Appellate Courts to have their case reheard if they are still in prison for the 10-20 yrs it takes. Earning 40 cents a day in the Prison Laundry should afford them a great opportunity to mount an excellent Case Review.

The manual itself states that the Judge determines whether a Defendent is allowed to mount an Entrapment Defense. (Mathews, 485 U.S. at 62)

While Statutory Protections look great, Application is dependent upon a reasonable Prosecutor and Judge. These 2 are rare indeed. A quick review of cases proves how Prosecutors often alledge the wildest "conspiracy theories" trying to increase their political positions.
Duke LaCrosse, etc.
http://www.jrn.com/kgun9/news/It-was-wo ... 78711.html
http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/ ... byns-case/
In the above case even ATF internal documents prove that this Agent got screwed over.
Often, we never hear about cases where a Defendent gets screwed because Society just assumes that every Arrestee is a Criminal. And under the contradictory State and US Laws, we ARE all just Undocumented Felons.

[danb35]

You're right, I didn't post the law itself--I posted a summary of the law, written by what I believed to be a reasonably authoritative source. I'm happy to consider alternate summaries, but my evaluation of their credibility will be greatly influenced by how much of the actual law they cite. You'll notice that the DOJ Manual contains extensive citations to the law itself--several opinions from the Supreme Court, and others from various Courts of Appeal*. Cases are all you're going to get, as the law of entrapment is almost exclusively case law. Some states may have statutes on the books, but there are no federal entrapment statutes I'm aware of.

As with almost everything else in the criminal law system, a reasonable judge and jury are going to be a big help. To claim entrapment, you'll need to argue the issue at the trial court. If you're successful, game over, you win. If you lose, you can argue the issue at the appellate court. If you lose there, you can ask the Supreme Court to hear your case, and hope they do. In this regard, it works just like any other defense to a crime (like self-defense).

I don't know if Barrett raised the issue of entrapment, and if he did, why he wasn't successful. The facts as presented in the article do make it sound like that defense could apply--but even as the article presents the facts, they're fishy. Barrett says he knew the silencer was illegal, but figured he'd buy it anyway to give it to ATF? Really? The fact that he'd placed it in a separate lock box didn't help him either. The article doesn't say anything about coercion, either--all it says is that, according to Barrett, "Bond was so insistent that Barrett buy both guns and the silencer." No claim is made of any kind of threats, coercion, etc. As far as we're told from the article, "so insistent" could well have been "all or nothing, I won't break them up."

* I've not recently read any of the entrapment cases, including those cited by the DOJ Manual. The Manual is consistent with what I remember from law school, so I'm assuming that it is correctly stating the law as stated in the cases it cites.

[whiterussian1974]

It is so refreshing to speak w a mind of your caliber. (No sarcasm whatsoever. I have to point that out because I tend to drip w sarcasm.)

So much of the time I have to deal w Deputies trying to narrowly skirt and circumvent Code of Criminal Procedure, Evidentiary Rules, and Dept Policies. But since we have a point system for Performance Evals, it's hard to blame them. Appearently the Taxpayers want this or they would say something.

I've testified at more Trials than I can recall the #. The quality of Judge is so variable that it's nearly like they weight all the factors determining the odds of a Reversal, and then rule according to their own whims. Many even comment on the Courts being the last refuge of the "Divine Right of Kings" before the Jury is led in. (This definitely has a chilling effect!)

Wiki: "Since the Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988,[17] most cases cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of right."

Even if you can prove Standing..."The court denies the vast majority of petitions and thus leaves the decision of the lower court to stand without review... In the term that concluded in June 2009, for example, 8,241 petitions were filed, with a grant rate of approximately 1.1 percent.
While appeals ... often present several alleged errors of the lower courts for appellate review, the Court normally grants review only of one or two questions presented in a certiorari petition."

danb35 stated, "In this regard, it works just like any other defense to a crime (like self-defense)." How often do Homocide trials progress where the Judge rules that Self-Defense can't be argued? Yet Judges frequently make in Camera rulings that Entrapment can't be argued or even hinted at in front of the Jury. And the Defense Attorney is held in Contempt if they mention Entrapment in open court.

You're right about the other points. I'm willing to concede them to you. My Arguments rest upon Procedural footings and their misapplication by Trial and Appellate Courts knowing how rarely Cert is granted.

[whiterussian1974]

To clarify the Statutory and Case Law for casual readers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_ ... osecutions
"The entrapment defense at the federal level exists entirely in case law."

Mathews v. United States http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal ... /case.html
"DeShazer believed that his company was not being provided with certain program benefits because he had rejected petitioner's repeated requests for loans. Assisting the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in an investigation of the matter, DeShazer, under FBI surveillance, offered petitioner a previously requested loan, which petitioner agreed to accept. Later, DeShazer met petitioner and gave him the money. Petitioner was immediately arrested and charged with the federal offense of accepting a bribe in exchange for an official act. The District Court denied petitioner's pretrial motion seeking to raise an entrapment defense, ruling that entrapment was not available because petitioner would not admit all of the elements (including the requisite mental state) of the offense. Petitioner testified in his own defense that, although he had accepted the loan, he believed it was a personal loan unrelated to his SBA duties. The court refused to instruct the jury as to entrapment, the jury found petitioner guilty, and the Court of Appeals affirmed."