◆ SpookStack

ro safeguards, particularly with respect to supervision of Weinberg; that the techniques employed by the government in Abscam were “outrageous” within the meaning. of Hampton v. United States, 425 US 484 (1976); that there was entrap- ment as a matter of law; that the compensation of Weinberg as an informant is unconstitutional; that it is: improper to undertake a general investigation into the corruptibility - of members of a particular branch of government. without some "well-grounded basis"; that as a matter of constitu- tional law the "so-called due process defense or objective strand of the entrapment defense" should be available to a defendant subjected to “outrageous governmental investiga- tory action"; that the destruction, erasure ar unexplained loss of tapes requires an inference that the tapes contained exculpatory material; and that in an undercover investigation the verbal assertion by a potential target that he or she desires to act within the law forecloses any further investi- gation of that individual. B. Thompson's Claims. Defendant Thompson advances arguments that are similar, although more focused. He urges what he character- izes as "the doctrine of governmental. overreaching" as requiring dismissal here because the government instigated rather than discovered the crimes and because its selection of "targets" was arbitrary and unprincipled. Thompson