Yes, the government totally trapped him. The police can't spend years convincing someone to want to break the law and then call them a criminal. Before the government started its 2.5-year campaign, there was no good proof Jacobson was planning to commit this crime. The government's job is to catch actual criminals, not to create new ones by manipulating people. They basically groomed him into committing a crime he probably would have never committed otherwise.

No, it wasn't a trap. When the government finally gave him a clear chance to buy the illegal stuff, he jumped at it—twice. That shows he was willing. The letters they sent before were just to make sure he was the right person to investigate. The jury heard all the facts and decided he was guilty, and the judges shouldn't just throw that out. This ruling makes it harder for police to do important undercover work.

Yes, the government tricked Keith Jacobson into committing a crime. Over the 26 months they contacted him, they made him want to do something illegal that he wouldn't have done on his own. They didn't prove that he wanted to break the law before they started talking to him. Just because Jacobson quickly agreed to buy the illegal magazine doesn't mean he would have done it without the government's influence, since they spent over two years convincing him it was okay. When the government's actions cause an otherwise law-abiding person to commit a crime they wouldn't have done on their own, the courts should step in.

No, the government did not trick Keith Jacobson. There was enough evidence for the jury to decide that Jacobson was ready and willing to commit the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that he responded so eagerly to the government's offers shows he was predisposed to do it. The Court is wrong to say the government has to prove someone wanted to commit a crime before any contact with the government. This changes the law and could make it seem like the government needs to suspect someone of a crime before investigating them. The Court is also wrong to suggest the government had to prove Jacobson knew his actions were illegal, even though the crime itself doesn't require that.

T] he prosecution must prove beyond [a] reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by Government agents

Under the subjective theory of entrapment, after the defense of entrapment is introduced "the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime."

Id. "The government may not implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." Id

When a government agent simply provides the defendant "with the opportunity to commit a crime, the entrapment defense is of little use because the ready commission of the criminal act amply demonstrates the defendant's predisposition."

—w] hen the Government's quest for convictions leads to the apprehension of an otherwise law-abiding citizen who, if left to his own devices, likely would have never run afoul of the law, the courts should intervene

Where the defense of entrapment was raised in a criminal prosecution, the US Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed as a matter of law to adduce evidence to support the jury verdict that Jacobson was predisposed independent of the government's acts and beyond a reasonable doubt to violate the Child Protection Act of 1984 by receiving child pornography …

Therefore, to warrant an entrapment instruction, a defendant must first present evidence that the government induced the criminal conduct.

In Jacobson the Court found entrapment as a matter of law... the inducement in that case was a two-year campaign of fake mail-order entreaties conditioning the defendant to believe that child porn was acceptable and encouraging him to purchase it

The issue is whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by government agents

Jacobson involved 26 months of repeated mailings and communications from government agents and fictitious organizations to lure the defendant into receiving child pornography

Yes, the government's actions constituted entrapment as a matter of law. To defeat an entrapment defense, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime existed before the government's initial contact. In this case, the government did not prove that Jacobson's predisposition was independent of its own 26-month campaign of persuasion. Jacobson's initial, legal purchase of the magazines was scant evidence of a predisposition to commit a future crime. His subsequent responses to government mailings, which framed the issue as a fight against censorship, were the product of government inducement, not evidence of a pre-existing criminal disposition. The government may not 'implant in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission.' By devoting 2.5 years to convincing him he should have the right to engage in the proscribed behavior, the government failed to prove that Jacobson would have committed the crime if left to his own devices.

No, the government's actions did not constitute entrapment as a matter of law, and the jury's verdict should stand. A reasonable jury could have permissibly inferred from the evidence that Jacobson was predisposed to commit the crime. Jacobson readily ordered illegal materials on both occasions they were offered to him. The majority incorrectly redefines predisposition by requiring the government to prove it existed before any government contact, rather than before the government first suggested the crime. This new standard will hamper legitimate sting operations by forcing investigators to have a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity before initiating contact. The government's mailings did not constitute 'substantial pressure' but were merely attempts to identify interested individuals, and it was the jury's role to interpret Jacobson's enthusiastic responses as evidence of his predisposition.

Yes, the Government entrapped Keith Jacobson because their conduct over the 26-month investigation implanted in Jacobson the disposition to commit the crime of receiving child pornography through the mail. The Government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jacobson's predisposition to commit the crime was independent of the Government's actions. Jacobson's ready response to the Government's solicitation cannot alone establish that he was predisposed to commit the crime, as the Government had spent over two years convincing him that he had or should have the right to engage in the illegal behavior. When the Government's quest for convictions leads to the apprehension of an otherwise law-abiding citizen who would not have run afoul of the law but for the Government's actions, the courts should intervene.

No, the Government did not entrap Keith Jacobson. The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Jacobson was predisposed to commit the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jacobson's eager response to the Government's solicitations demonstrated his predisposition. The Court's holding that the Government must prove a defendant's predisposition existed before any contact with Government agents changes entrapment doctrine and could be misread as requiring the Government to have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before investigating a suspect. The Court also improperly redefines predisposition by suggesting that the Government must prove Jacobson knew his conduct was illegal, even though the crime does not require specific intent.

Jacobson v. United States

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot