Reply #20: Here is another case that definitely is NOT entrapment

[madmusic]

29 Appeal from judgment entered on July 28, 2005, in the United States District Court for
30 the Southern District of New York (Leisure, J.), convicting defendant of traveling in interstate
31 commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with an individual that defendant
32 believed to be a thirteen-year-old girl in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), and for using a
33 computer, the Internet, and a telephone in attempting to persuade, induce, and entice an
34 individual who has not attained the age of eighteen to engage in illicit sexual activity in violation
35 of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQxNTUtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4155-cr_opn.pdf#xml=http://10.213.23.111:8080/isysquery/irl6a2c/1/hilite">U.S. v. Brand


Good and recent summary of the law. And I didn't know the government could induce a suspect into enticing a Perverted Justice undercover, so evidently pretending to be "eager" isn't illegal. It would still be interesting to know how many, if any, of the claimed busts were actually entrapments but we never heard about it.

edit sp

EDIT again. Source:

To Catch a Predator . . . Or To Entrap Him?
U.S. v. Brand, 05-4155 (2nd Cir., Oct. 19, 2006)

When it comes to sexual predators who lurk online, there’s a fine line between catching them and entrapping them, as this Second Circuit appeal shows. Thirty-six year voice instructor Matthew Branch (screen name "Tempoteech") met 13-year old Sara in AOL’s "I Love Older Men" chatroom. The two became fast friends, with Brand proposing to give her voice lessons and marry her when she turned 18. Sara then introduced Brand to her friend Julie, and the conversation between Brand and Julie became a bit more explicit. The two eventually arranged to meet at the Port Authority bus terminal in New York City.

But if Dateline’s "To Catch a Predator" has taught us anything, it’s that Sara and Julie were really adults posing as teenagers. "Sara" was actually a private citizen who trolls the internet for men like Brand and then passes them on to FBI agents, who then collect evidence for criminal charges using internet personae like "Julie." So when Brand showed up at the Port Authority terminal with condoms in his car, he was arrested. The jury didn’t buy Brand’s entrapment defense, and he was convicted of attempted enticement of a minor.

On appeal to the Second Circuit, Brand argued that his entrapment defense should have carried the day. Specifically, he pointed to the fact that it was "Julie" who broached the subject of sex. And it was "Julie" who contacted Brand after a canceled meeting to goad him into setting up their fateful Port Authority date. But the Court rejects his claim. It explains that Brand may be able to show that the government induced him to commit the crime, but this is irrelevant if Brand was predisposed to commit it. Here, Brand’s "prompt response" to Julie’s overtures shows that he was "ready and willing to commit the crime charged and awaiting a propitious opportunity to do so." After rejecting Brand’s remaining challenges, the Court affirms his conviction.

// posted by Robert Loblaw @ Thursday, October 19, 2006 1 comments links to this post

http://appellatedecisions.blogspot.com/2006_10_15_appellatedecisions_archive.html