Entrapment is often misunderstood, with many believing that any manipulation by law enforcement qualifies as entrapment. It is a legal defense used when government agents, such as police officers, induce or coerce an individual into committing a crime they wouldn't have committed. It's important to distinguish between entrapment and providing an opportunity to commit a crime, as they are different.
This blog will explore entrapment, when it can be used as a defense, and how courts determine if it applies. We will also discuss real-world examples and the differences between the objective and subjective standards used in evaluating entrapment cases. If you believe you've been induced to commit a crime, understanding the intricacies of entrapment can be crucial in your defense.

Defining Entrapment in Legal Terms

Entrapment takes place when law enforcement officers use coercion, manipulation, or overbearing conduct to convince an individual to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed. It is not a crime but a defense used by defendants claiming a government agent induced them to commit a criminal act. To successfully use this defense, a defendant must prove that they were coerced or manipulated by law enforcement and would not have committed the crime without the agent's intervention.

Entrapment vs. Opportunity

A common misconception about entrapment is that it occurs simply when law enforcement offers an opportunity to commit a crime. While tactics like "bait car" operations—where officers leave a car running with the keys in high-crime areas—provide an opportunity, they don't constitute entrapment. Entrapment goes beyond offering the chance to commit a crime; it involves active coercion, manipulation, or threats that induce someone to break the law, something a law-abiding citizen would typically resist.

The Mechanics of Entrapment

To understand how entrapment occurs, it's helpful to break down the various forms of police conduct that can lead to it. Entrapment usually involves one or more of the following tactics:

• Coercion: This is when a law enforcement officer pressures or forces someone to commit a crime by threatening harm or negative consequences if they do not comply. For example, an officer may threaten someone with harm or arrest if they do not engage in illegal activities.
• Manipulation: Sometimes law enforcement officers manipulate suspects by providing false information or appealing to their emotions. For instance, an undercover officer may claim to be in a desperate situation and plead for assistance, knowing that this emotional appeal will convince the target to commit a crime.
• Lies and Deception: In some cases, law enforcement officers may lie to suspects to trick them into committing crimes. While undercover officers can lie about their identity, the nature of the lie determines whether entrapment has occurred. If the officer's lies are so convincing that they push someone to act criminally, this may qualify as entrapment.

Real-World Examples of Entrapment

Real-world examples help clarify entrapment. In the first scenario, an undercover officer lies about needing drugs for his sick mother and asks Mary-Anne Berry to sell them to him. While he lied, there was no coercion, and she chose to commit the crime, so this is not entrapment. 
In the second scenario, the officer repeatedly pressures Mary-Anne over two weeks, using emotional manipulation and false claims to induce her to sell drugs. This constitutes entrapment, as she wouldn't have committed the crime without the officer's coercion.

Objective vs. Subjective Standard in Entrapment Cases

Once a defendant raises the entrapment defense, the court must determine whether it applies to that case. Jurisdictions may use either an objective or subjective standard to evaluate entrapment claims. Understanding these two standards is essential for anyone facing an entrapment defense.

• Objective Standard: Under the objective standard, the jury considers whether an ordinarily law-abiding person would have committed the crime if not for the law enforcement officer's actions. This standard focuses on the officer's behavior and whether it was coercive or overbearing enough to lead a reasonable person to commit a crime.
  For example, if an ordinarily law-abiding individual were manipulated or coerced into committing a crime due to law enforcement's actions, this standard likely supports a claim of entrapment.
• Subjective Standard: In contrast, the subjective standard centers on the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime. The jury evaluates whether the defendant was already inclined to commit the crime and whether the officer's actions merely encouraged an existing intent to break the law.
  If a defendant has a criminal history or was otherwise predisposed to commit the crime, it becomes harder to argue entrapment successfully under the subjective standard. In this case, the defense must show that the officer's actions were the deciding factor in the defendant's decision to commit the crime, rather than the defendant's predisposition.

The Burden of Proof in Entrapment Cases

In an entrapment defense, the defendant bears the burden of proof. The defendant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the actions of the law enforcement officers led them to commit the crime. This means the defendant must show that it is more likely than not that they were entrapped.
Unlike most criminal cases, where the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, entrapment cases shift the burden of proof to the defendant. This makes the entrapment defense particularly challenging, as the defendant must present evidence to support their claim.

Common Misconceptions About Entrapment

Several common misconceptions about entrapment often lead to confusion:

• Entrapment is a crime: Some people believe that entrapment itself is a crime. In reality, entrapment is a defense, not an offense. It's a legal argument used by defendants to show that they were induced to commit a crime they wouldn't have committed on their own.
• Anyone can engage in entrapment: Many think private individuals can entrap others. However, only government agents, such as police officers, can engage in entrapment. Private citizens cannot claim or induce entrapment.
• Entrapment is an automatic defense: Some believe that claiming entrapment will always result in acquittal. However, as discussed, it's up to the jury to decide whether entrapment occurred, and the defendant must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

When to Seek Legal Help
If you believe you have been wrongfully induced to commit a crime by law enforcement, consulting with a criminal defense lawyer is crucial. A criminal defense lawyer can help assess the viability of an entrapment defense in your case. A skilled attorney will understand entrapment laws' nuances and can guide you on how best to present your defense.
At Bulldog Law, we understand the complexities of criminal law and are here to support you if you believe you've been entrapped. Our experienced criminal defense lawyers in California can give expert advice and help you understand the legalities to make sure that your rights are protected.