◆ SpookStack

prosecution. Defendants argue that those cases, those -circumstances and that conduct have arrived with Abscam.. “It is clear that mere instigation of the crime — does not render law enforcement activity "outrageous" Here, the government presented a fictitious sheik, seeking. to buy favorable legislative action. Undercover agents offered-money in return for defendant legislators’ promises - to introduce a private immigration bill. In simple terns, bribes were offered by the undercover agents and accepted by the defendant congressmen. — ee Clearly, the government agents created the opportun-. ity for criminal conduct by offering the bribes. But their involvement falls far short of being "outrageous" for two reasons. In the first place, each of the, legislators could simply have said "no" to: the offer. US. v. Myers, 635 F2d at 939. Three other legislators faced. with identical offers, Senator Pressler, Congressman Patten and Congressman Murtha did precisely that as shown by the videotapes in’ evidence as DP Exs. 22, 21, and Thompson trial Ex. 29. Second, the extent of governmental involvement here is. far less than that im Hampton, where the government not only supplied _ heroin for the defendant to sell, but also produced an undercover agent to buy it from him. Even under those circumstances, where the government was active on both sides of a narcotics sale, the Supreme Court did- not consider