Crim Law Defenses: Entrapment: The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed

if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime. The "objective" test looks instead at the government's conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime. Jacobson v. United States (1992): entrapment. Guy ordered child pornography magazines before it was illegal. Nebraska then kept sending the guy child pornography. Guy eventually bought some. Entrapment? Yes. Entrapment: would a reasonable person be swayed? Difficult case: addict goes to a program for five years and is now clean. Government comes to him with drugs and swindles him into buying the drugs. Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled: The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime. Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime. The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents. Objective test for entrapment: People v. Moore: guy sold pills to undercover agent at gas station after being contacted by the agent. Lack of police supervision over informant, pressure the informant exerted on the guy, exploitation of the friendship? Nope. Relationship: exploiting a close relationship can be very relevant. Would you otherwise not commit the crime? Then examine. Inappropriate conduct by the government (exploiting human vulnerability)? Confidential informant: how to make sure informants (usually criminals) act properly and dont just foster further crime? If you fink on everybody else=witness protection. Use the confidential informant to develop probable cause for a search or seizure! Arrest and then use plea bargains to sting more crooks! Never compromise the informant. Is the relationship between the informant and the government a contract? Usually, with consideration being the informants life.

Confidential informants must act in good faith, like any other contract. Remember: the informants may lie and fabricate. Cyclical entrapment (repeat) may be annulled. INSANITY: What is a mental disease or defect? It is not sociopathy, must be more serious than a personality disorder. Compare to diminished capacity and diminished responsibility: diminished capacity is being unable to know the mental state of a crime due to mental defect (only for specific intent at common law). Diminished responsibility only lowers the offense (extreme emotional disturbance, perhaps). MPC: no specific/general distinction. Does the mental defect show that you dont have mental state? Deific decree exception: God took me over and made me do this. Belieivng this due to a religious belief is not insanity. Direct command from God: perceived? I had no choice.