Supreme Court OKs Narc FrameTJps
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled five to three that it is constitutional to convict a person for selling drugs even when undercover agents or government informers initially supplied the seller with the drugs and other undercover agents acted as the purchasers* This ruling substantially strengthens the power of the DEA, which employs lhe use of undercover nares as a major enforcement tool, lit effect, this ruling broadens the extent to which the DEA and local drug-enforcement units may participate in planniug an illegal crime to make arrests.
Entrapment was initially developed as a legal defense under which a defendant could be acquitted if the government was shown to have instigated the crime. This decision, the latest in a long line of related cases, comes three years after a major court ruling limiting the circumstances in which a defendant may claim e ntrapme n t as a de fe use.
Until this decision, (here had been various contradictory rulings by lower courts on the extent of government involvement necessary in selting up a crime to allow a defendant to claim entrapment. . Then several lower courts began to rule that even ifa defendant was not entitled to claim entrapment,, because he was notan unwary innocent,,govem-ment involvement in planning a crime could sometimes be so extensive that it would be fundamentally unfair to convict the defendant,. Now the court has drawn a clear line between "the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal:'
Continue reading here: High Court Rejects Religious Pot
Was this article helpful?