◆ SpookStack

consideration of predisposition entirely and would instead devote their attention only to governmental misconduct. While they would prefer to be more restrictive of: permissible : governmental involvement in crime than Justice Powell's . test of “outrageousness"', the dissenters' position a fortiori accepts the "“outrageousness" standard, making it the point in the continuum of escalating police involvement in crime where five members of the present court agree that a convic- tion should be overturned-and an indictment dismissed. Until further word Eroin the Supreme Court, there- . t ‘fore, as a matter of strict legal precedent, this court . must assume that while the subjective. view of entrapment . is the general guide, it is nevertheless subject to an overriding exception that under either the court's super- 10 visory power or the due process clause, a predisposed defendant- cannot be convicted if police over-involvement _in his crime reaches "a demonstrable level of outrageous- “ness”. See US v. Johnson, 565 F2d 179, 181 (CA 1 1977): _B. OQutrageousness. What conduct by law enforcement officials would be "“outrageous't? . No clear standard has evolved. "Many ‘partially relevant factors have been discussed, argued, and either accepted or rejected in various opinions on the subject. The court has reviewed and carefully considered