Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealtrial
defendantappealtrial

Related Cases

Orozco; U.S. v.
View Case »
Beltranena v. Department of State
View Case »
Silverman v. Rogers
View Case »
Bart; U.S. v.
View Case »
Perez v. Perez
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Russell; U.S. v.

Facts

Defendant was convicted of two counts of distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. 841(a)(1) in the district court. The case arose from two sales of heroin by the defendant to agents of the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The defendant contended that he neither intended to sell nor knew that he was dealing in heroin and that all of the drugs he sold were supplied by a government informant. The jury rejected his claim, and the trial court refused to instruct the jury on the entrapment defense.

Defendant was convicted of two counts of distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. 841(a)(1) in the district court. The case arose from two sales of heroin by the defendant to agents of the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The defendant contended that he neither intended to sell nor knew that he was dealing in heroin and that all of the drugs he sold were supplied by a government informant. The jury rejected his claim, and the trial court refused to instruct the jury on the entrapment defense.

Issue

Whether a defendant may be convicted for the sale of contraband which he procured from a Government informant or agent.

Whether a defendant may be convicted for the sale of contraband which he procured from a Government informant or agent.

Rule

The statutory defense of entrapment is not available where it is conceded that a Government agent supplied a necessary ingredient in the manufacture of an illicit drug, focusing on the intent or predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime.

The statutory defense of entrapment is not available where it is conceded that a Government agent supplied a necessary ingredient in the manufacture of an illicit drug, focusing on the intent or predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by affirming that the defendant's conceded predisposition to commit the crime rendered the entrapment defense unavailable. The court noted that the defendant's actions and the involvement of the government informant did not absolve him of responsibility for the sales of heroin, as he was found to have solicited and carried out the sales.

The court applied the rule by affirming that the defendant's conceded predisposition to commit the crime rendered the entrapment defense unavailable. The court noted that the defendant's actions and the involvement of the government informant did not absolve him of responsibility for the sales of heroin, as he was found to have solicited and carried out the sales.

Conclusion

The Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the defendant could be convicted for the sale of contraband procured from a government informant.

The Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the defendant could be convicted for the sale of contraband procured from a government informant.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, affirming that the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime negated the entrapment defense.

The United States prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, affirming that the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime negated the entrapment defense.

You must be