◆ SpookStack

ee ee sae ithe RR a kh A SENSITIVE Manl-ID; LHBSAP1 LEGAL HANDBOOK FOR SPECIAL AGENTS PART 1 evidence in a case establishes that the defendant was predisposed to commit the offense, however, the defense of entrapment willl be defeated. (2) |Predisposition in Federal cases can be established by many different types of evidence. Federal courts generally permit the Government to introduce at trial the following types lof predisposition evidence as long as it 18 similar to the orime for which the defendant is currently charged: (a) Prior convictions. | (bo) Prior arrests. | (c) Preoffense criminal activity. For lexample, the defendant is charged with selling a controlled substance.) Prior to the offense charged, he/she sold a similar substance to undercover Agents. (d) Postoffense criminal activity. For example, the defendant is charged with selling cocaine. A few months |later he/she attempts to sell another controlled substance to undercover Agents. (e) A defendant's response to a Government inducement can also be considered as evidence of predispdestion. A defendant's ready and unhesitating acceptance of the Government's offer to commit a crime is substantial evidence that he/she was predisposed to do so. | **eEfFEDte: 05/01/1985 MCRT#: 0 Div: D9 Cav: SecCls: 8-3.6 Governmental Participation it should be noted that under the entrapment jtest used in Federal courts, governmental involvement in the criminal jactivity does not constitute entrapment if the defendant was predisposad to commit the crime. For example, the Supreme Court has held thera was no entrapment in a prosecution for manufacturing narcotsce, leven though an undercover agent supplied a predisposed defendant with an ingredient essential to the manufacturing process. Merely furnishing the opportunity to violate the law does not constitute ect to com Entrapment lies only when the Government induces a suspect to commit a crime he/she 1s andisposed to commit. **EfEDte: 05/01/1985 MCRT#: 0 Div: D9 Cav: SecCls: 8-3.6.1 The Due Process Defense (1) It is clear from the foregoing discussion that proof SENSITIVE Printed: 08/20/2003 06:43:34