133:
621:
toleration ... The
Government is doing nothing less than buying contraband from itself through an intermediary and jailing the intermediary ... There is little, if any, law enforcement interest promoted by such conduct; plainly it is not designed to discover ongoing drug traffic. Rather, such conduct deliberately entices an individual to commit a crime. That the accused is "predisposed" cannot possibly justify the action of government officials in purposefully creating the crime. No one would suggest that the police could
24:
542:, and then said it didn't apply here. "Admittedly petitioner's case is different from Russell's but the difference is one of degree, not of kind". He conceded that the government's role, at least in the defense case, was more significant but stuck with the admitted predisposition towards drug dealing in rejecting any entrapment claim. Again, he decisively rejected any effort to assert the objective standard.
488:, perfectly legal, he thought. Previous to the deals with the DEA the two had, he said, already sold it to one gullible buyer and that he solicited the agents in order to make more money. At no time had he ever believed the two were actually selling heroin, he claimed. He raised the entrapment defense but proposed an alternate to the standard entrapment
569:
took issue with what they saw as
Rehnquist's overly broad assertion that (as they put it), "the concept of fundamental fairness inherent in the guarantee of due process would never prevent the conviction of a predisposed defendant, regardless of the outrageousness of police behavior in light of the
589:
made the argument once again for the "objective" entrapment standard from previous concurrences and dissents, and said that this would necessitate overturning the conviction. He also said that he did not find the defendant predisposed to commit the crime either. "(T)he
Government's role in the
620:
situation are of degree or of kind ... I think they clearly require a different result. Where the
Government's agent deliberately sets up the accused by supplying him with contraband and then bringing him to another agent as a potential purchaser, the Government's role has passed the point of
608:
But in the instant case, not only was the heroin a completely illegal substance, it had been supplied wholly by the DEA. There was also no evidence introduced beyond his admission as such that
Hampton had been dealing drugs prior to Hutton's approach. "The beginning and end of this crime thus
577:
or earlier cases delineating the predisposition-focused defense of entrapment to have gone so far", Powell wrote. He noted that the jurisprudence was very limited, and that the Court had, for one, not yet had the opportunity to consider an entrapment claim from some source other than
669:
after two years of being cajoled by material created by postal inspectors. Held: the government must show that predisposition existed before the government became involved, and legal behavior does not constitute a predisposition to violate the law after such conduct becomes
440:, was less fair and appropriate than the "objective" standard of evaluating official conduct, which dissents and concurrences in entrapment cases over the years had argued for. However, this was the last entrapment case to feature that conflict.
416:
The case came before the court when the defendant argued that while he was predisposed, it was irrelevant since the government's possible role as sole supplier in the case constituted the sort of "outrageous government conduct" that
Justice
471:. Sawyer called the next day and arranged another deal. Later, in a parked car, Hampton gave Sawyer another packet, whereupon he said he had to get the money from the trunk. When he opened it, other agents moved in to arrest Hampton.
545:"The limitations of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment come into play only when the Government activity in question violates some protected right of the defendant", he wrote, in a comment read as scaling back his
578:
controlled-substance enforcement. "In these circumstances, I am unwilling to conclude that an analysis other than one limited to predisposition would never be appropriate under due process principles".
484:
Hampton's story was very different from the one presented by federal prosecutors. He claimed Hutton had, in response to his cash flow problems, come up with the idea to sell not heroin but a
609:
coincided exactly with the
Government's entry into and withdrawal from the criminal activity involved in this case, while the Government was not similarly involved in Russell's crime".
511:
holding. The Court thereby rejected
Hampton's argument that, whatever his predisposition, the conduct of the government operatives in his narrative was outrageous enough to trump it.
430:
The dissents agreed that the government's purported action was outrageous and that the conviction should be overturned on those grounds. The justices were among those who had said in
601:
that was legal yet difficult to obtain, and one the defendant in that case had demonstrably been able to obtain from other sources than the government undercover agent. As well, in
215:
860:
629:
In any case where an individual was prosecuted for selling drugs provided to him by a government operative, he said, conviction should be barred as a matter of law.
781:
753:
728:
703:
680:
651:
504:
234:
226:
178:
549:
aside. "(T)he police conduct here no more deprived defendant of any right secured to him by the United States
Constitution than did the police conduct in
875:
413:
informant who had, in turn, gotten it from the DEA. The majority held that the record showed
Hampton was predisposed to sell drugs no matter his source.
467:
Sawyer and another DEA agent, McDowell, and sold him a tiny packet of heroin for $ 145. Hampton told the agents that he could get more and gave him his
460:
to sell. Hutton responded that he could find a buyer. After the conversation, he called his handler, DEA agent Terry Sawyer, and reported the proposal.
45:
38:
597:
He contrasted the two cases, noting that in the earlier case the government agent had merely supplied an ingredient for the manufacture of
661: (1990). The Court finally does consider an entrapment case from outside drug enforcement, and narrowly overturns the conviction of a
865:
855:
88:
60:
870:
67:
157:
434:
that the "subjective" entrapment standard adopted by the Court since it first recognized entrapment as a valid defense in
74:
207:
137:
107:
56:
410:
880:
828:
605:
the illegal manufacturing operation had been producing the drug well before the federal operation began.
394:
222:
792:
81:
748:
646:
436:
810:
723:
423:
538:
Rehnquist said that Hampton had misunderstood his comments about outrageous government conduct in
586:
456:
when Hampton noticed the needle marks on Hutton's arms. He said he needed money and could obtain
34:
819:
421:
had speculated could lead to the reversal of a conviction in the court's last entrapment case,
286:
590:
criminal activity involved in this case was more pervasive than the Government involvement in
785:
757:
732:
707:
655:
238:
170:
801:
562:
8:
453:
318:
760:
735:
710:
658:
666:
633:
625:, yet that is precisely what set-ups like the instant one are intended to accomplish.
418:
330:
322:
306:
211:
489:
485:
278:
594:... In my view, the police activity in this case was beyond permissible limits."
173:
885:
598:
427:. Rehnquist was not impressed and rejected the argument in his majority opinion.
448:
In late February 1974, Hampton and a DEA informant known as Hutton were playing
566:
310:
294:
259:
Government agents supplying illegal drugs for transaction does not constitute
849:
468:
837:
298:
263:
where defendant had predisposition to sell drugs regardless of supplier.
521:
464:
398:
379:
260:
230:
189:
622:
449:
185:
409:
even though all the drug sold was supplied to him, he claimed, by a
23:
662:
402:
368:
Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
216:
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
636:, then newly appointed to the Court, took no part in the case.
457:
406:
132:
219:
507:
affirmed the conviction, relying on the Supreme Court's
401:. By a 5–3 margin, the Court upheld the conviction of a
463:
At 10 p.m. on February 25, Hampton and Hutton met the
861:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
681:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 425
495:The jury chose not to believe him and convicted.
847:
623:round up and jail all "predisposed" individuals
561:While likewise rejecting Hampton's defense,
639:
876:Drug Enforcement Administration litigation
612:He responded quite strongly to Rehnquist:
443:
108:Learn how and when to remove this message
848:
44:Please improve this article by adding
514:
120:1976 United States Supreme Court case
363:Brennan, joined by Stewart, Marshall
17:
13:
525:on the entrapment question alone.
347:Rehnquist, joined by Burger, White
138:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
897:
866:United States entrapment case law
856:United States Supreme Court cases
788:484 (1976) is available from:
770:
616:Whether the differences from the
206:Defendant convicted of violating
553:deprive Russell of any rights."
131:
22:
505:Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
474:
411:Drug Enforcement Administration
871:1976 in United States case law
741:
716:
693:
556:
1:
686:
46:secondary or tertiary sources
570:surrounding circumstances."
393:, 425 U.S. 484 (1976), is a
7:
674:
533:
528:
397:decision on the subject of
395:United States Supreme Court
218:; conviction affirmed, 507
10:
902:
838:Oyez (oral argument audio)
581:
519:The Supreme Court granted
355:Powell, joined by Blackmun
57:"Hampton v. United States"
749:Sorrells v. United States
647:Jacobson v. United States
498:
437:Sorrells v. United States
377:
372:
367:
359:
351:
343:
338:
272:
267:
258:
253:
245:
202:
197:
165:
151:
144:
130:
125:
778:Hampton v. United States
724:United States v. Russell
700:Hampton v. United States
640:Subsequent jurisprudence
479:
424:United States v. Russell
390:Hampton v. United States
126:Hampton v. United States
145:Argued December 1, 1975
627:
444:Background of the case
287:William J. Brennan Jr.
160:Byers v. United States
147:Decided April 27, 1976
33:relies excessively on
614:
573:"I do not understand
881:History of St. Louis
829:Library of Congress
319:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
249:Conviction affirmed
184:96 S. Ct. 1646; 48
515:Supreme Court case
452:at the Pud bar in
283:Associate Justices
667:child pornography
665:man for ordering
634:John Paul Stevens
419:William Rehnquist
386:
385:
323:William Rehnquist
307:Thurgood Marshall
118:
117:
110:
92:
893:
842:
836:
833:
827:
824:
818:
815:
809:
806:
800:
797:
791:
764:
745:
739:
720:
714:
697:
405:man for selling
279:Warren E. Burger
268:Court membership
241:1003 (1975).
135:
134:
123:
122:
113:
106:
102:
99:
93:
91:
50:
26:
18:
901:
900:
896:
895:
894:
892:
891:
890:
846:
845:
840:
834:
831:
825:
822:
816:
813:
807:
804:
798:
795:
789:
773:
768:
767:
746:
742:
721:
717:
698:
694:
689:
677:
642:
599:methamphetamine
587:William Brennan
584:
559:
536:
531:
517:
501:
482:
477:
446:
331:John P. Stevens
321:
309:
297:
193:
146:
140:
121:
114:
103:
97:
94:
51:
49:
43:
39:primary sources
27:
12:
11:
5:
899:
889:
888:
883:
878:
873:
868:
863:
858:
844:
843:
811:Google Scholar
772:
771:External links
769:
766:
765:
740:
715:
691:
690:
688:
685:
684:
683:
676:
673:
672:
671:
641:
638:
583:
580:
567:Harry Blackmun
558:
555:
535:
532:
530:
527:
516:
513:
500:
497:
481:
478:
476:
473:
445:
442:
384:
383:
375:
374:
370:
369:
365:
364:
361:
357:
356:
353:
349:
348:
345:
341:
340:
336:
335:
334:
333:
311:Harry Blackmun
295:Potter Stewart
284:
281:
276:
270:
269:
265:
264:
256:
255:
251:
250:
247:
243:
242:
208:21 U.S.C.
204:
200:
199:
195:
194:
183:
167:
163:
162:
153:
152:Full case name
149:
148:
142:
141:
136:
128:
127:
119:
116:
115:
30:
28:
21:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
898:
887:
884:
882:
879:
877:
874:
872:
869:
867:
864:
862:
859:
857:
854:
853:
851:
839:
830:
821:
812:
803:
794:
793:CourtListener
787:
783:
779:
775:
774:
762:
759:
755:
751:
750:
744:
737:
734:
730:
726:
725:
719:
712:
709:
705:
701:
696:
692:
682:
679:
678:
668:
664:
660:
657:
653:
649:
648:
644:
643:
637:
635:
630:
626:
624:
619:
613:
610:
606:
604:
600:
595:
593:
588:
579:
576:
571:
568:
564:
554:
552:
548:
543:
541:
526:
524:
523:
512:
510:
506:
496:
493:
491:
487:
472:
470:
466:
461:
459:
455:
451:
441:
439:
438:
433:
428:
426:
425:
420:
414:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
391:
381:
376:
371:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
339:Case opinions
337:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
285:
282:
280:
277:
275:Chief Justice
274:
273:
271:
266:
262:
257:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
221:
217:
213:
212:§ 841(a)
209:
205:
201:
196:
191:
187:
181:
180:
175:
172:
168:
164:
161:
159:
154:
150:
143:
139:
129:
124:
112:
109:
101:
90:
87:
83:
80:
76:
73:
69:
66:
62:
59: –
58:
54:
53:Find sources:
47:
41:
40:
36:
31:This article
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
777:
763: (1932).
747:
743:
738: (1973).
722:
718:
713: (1976).
699:
695:
645:
631:
628:
617:
615:
611:
607:
602:
596:
591:
585:
574:
572:
563:Lewis Powell
560:
550:
546:
544:
539:
537:
520:
518:
508:
502:
494:
483:
475:Lower courts
469:phone number
462:
447:
435:
431:
429:
422:
415:
389:
388:
387:
373:Laws applied
326:
314:
302:
290:
198:Case history
177:
155:
104:
95:
85:
78:
71:
64:
52:
32:
15:
557:Concurrence
490:instruction
352:Concurrence
299:Byron White
233:. granted,
98:August 2019
850:Categories
687:References
522:certiorari
465:undercover
399:Entrapment
380:entrapment
261:entrapment
246:Subsequent
190:U.S. LEXIS
188:113; 1976
68:newspapers
35:references
454:St. Louis
378:Existing
186:L. Ed. 2d
166:Citations
156:Hampton,
776:Text of
675:See also
670:illegal.
663:Nebraska
632:Justice
534:Majority
529:Decision
403:Missouri
382:case law
344:Majority
227:8th Cir.
802:Findlaw
618:Russell
603:Russell
592:Russell
582:Dissent
575:Russell
551:Russell
547:Russell
540:Russell
509:Russell
432:Russell
360:Dissent
254:Holding
229:1974);
82:scholar
886:Heroin
841:
835:
832:
826:
823:
820:Justia
817:
814:
808:
805:
799:
796:
790:
752:,
727:,
702:,
499:Appeal
458:heroin
407:heroin
329:
327:·
325:
317:
315:·
313:
305:
303:·
301:
293:
291:·
289:
210:
84:
77:
70:
63:
55:
784:
756:
731:
706:
654:
480:Trial
237:
203:Prior
158:a/k/a
89:JSTOR
75:books
786:U.S.
758:U.S.
733:U.S.
708:U.S.
656:U.S.
565:and
503:The
486:fake
450:pool
239:U.S.
231:cert
220:F.2d
179:more
171:U.S.
169:425
61:news
782:425
761:435
754:287
736:423
729:411
711:484
704:425
659:540
652:503
235:420
223:832
214:in
174:484
37:to
852::
780:,
650:,
492:.
192:49
48:.
225:(
182:)
176:(
111:)
105:(
100:)
96:(
86:·
79:·
72:·
65:·
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
