Young and Hendricks meet in a detoxification program. While in the program, Hendricks constantly talks about drug use. After the two leave the program they keep in touch. Hendricks, on his on initiative begins to record phone conversations which he has with Young. During one such conversation he suggests to Young that he would be interested in purchasing a quantity of heroin from Young if Young were able to obtain some. Hendricks subsequently contacts the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and enrolls as an informer. Hendricks and a DEA agent arrange for Young to purchase heroin and then resell the narcotic to an undercover DEA agent. Young carries out the deal and is consequently arrested while making the controlled sell. Young is subsequently convicted by the trial court.

On appeal, Young asserts that he was entrapped by the DEA. How ought the court address the issue of entrapment as a defense? What is the relevance of the fact that Hendricks was not in the employ of the DEA when he initiated the idea of carrying out the transaction to Young?

 Jake Jelinek

Wake Forest University

Answer

Entrapment occurs when a law enforcement officer or someone cooperating with him has induced the defendant to commit a crime that the defendant is not predisposed to commit.  There is no constitutional basis for the defense of entrapment, it varies in every state and the Supreme Court on the federal level in the exercise of its supervisory powers decides under what facts entrapment will be found.  Therefore, if your exam is focusing on federal constitutional law, you probably will not need to worry about entrapment.

Compare with United States v. Young, 78 F.3d 758, (1st Cir., 1996).