Yes. The court decided that it's wrong for the government to create criminals just to punish them. Laws are meant to catch actual criminals, not to be used as a tool to trick good people into breaking them. If the idea for the crime came from the government agent and the person wasn't already looking for a chance to break the law, it's 'entrapment.' The jury should have been allowed to hear the evidence and decide if that's what happened to Sorrells.

Yes, the case should be dismissed, but for a different reason. The real issue isn't whether Sorrells is innocent—he did break the law. The problem is that the government's behavior was so improper that the court shouldn't even participate in the case. Courts need to stay clean and not get involved in dirty tricks. It should be a judge's job, not a jury's, to throw out a case like this to protect the justice system's reputation. It shouldn't matter if Sorrells was a good guy or not; what the agent did was wrong, period.

Yes, Mr. Sorrells cannot be found guilty if he was tricked. The evidence shows that the police officer came up with the idea for the crime, not Mr. Sorrells. The officer put the idea in Mr. Sorrells' head and convinced an innocent man to commit a crime he wouldn't normally do, just so he could arrest him. Mr. Sorrells was a hardworking, law-abiding citizen who had never broken liquor laws before. The officer kept pushing him to do it, using their common war experience to persuade him. Police can trick actual criminals, but they can't trick innocent people into becoming criminals. What matters is if the person was already planning to commit the crime before the police got involved. The court has to stop the police from abusing the law this way.

Justice McReynolds thinks the lower court decision should stand and Mr. Sorrells should be found guilty.

The case should be overturned, but for different reasons. Entrapment is not a defense about whether the person is guilty or not. It's a rule that courts can't let police abuse the system. When trickery is proven, the court has to stop the case completely, let the person go, and not allow them to be prosecuted at all, even if they did the crime. The court can ask a jury for input, but it's up to the court to make the decision. Letting a jury decide wrongly focuses on the person's reputation instead of what actually happened in the case.

—"when the criminal design originates with the officials of the government, and they implant in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission in order that they may prosecute."

The focus of the entrapment defense is the intent or predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime.

Entrapment is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion, or fraud of the officer.

Like the Sorrels court, we are "unable to conclude that it was the intention of the Congress in enacting this statute that its processes of detection and enforcement should be abused by the instigation by government officials of an act on the part of persons otherwise innocent in order to lure them to its commission and to punish them."

"It is well settled that the fact that officers or employees of the government merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense does not defeat the prosecution. Artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those engaged in criminal enterprises."

"[I] f the defendant seeks acquittal by reason of entrapment he cannot complain of an appropriate and searching inquiry into his own conduct and predisposition as bearing upon that issue."

It is the province of the court... alone to protect itself and the government from such prostitution of the criminal law

Improper inducement requires a showing not only that the government afforded a defendant an opportunity to commit a crime but also that it brought to bear "something more—something akin to excessive pressure, threats, or the exploitation of an unfair advantage."

Given the range of evidence that is relevant to the predisposition issue, certain bad-act evidence may be admissible under Rule 404 (b) in entrapment cases that would not be admissible in cases where entrapment is not an issue.

Yes. The defense of entrapment is available when government officials originate a criminal design and induce its commission by a person who was not predisposed to commit such an offense. The court reasoned that Congress, in passing criminal statutes, does not intend for them to be enforced by luring otherwise innocent individuals into committing crimes. To apply the statute literally in such circumstances would be a perversion of its purpose and an abuse of governmental authority. This defense is not a grant of judicial clemency but is based on statutory interpretation, concluding that such induced conduct falls outside the statute's purview. The central question for the jury is whether the defendant was predisposed to the criminal act, with the government's inducement merely providing the opportunity, or whether the government implanted the criminal design in the mind of an innocent person.

Yes, the prosecution should be barred, but the defense of entrapment should be based on public policy, not statutory construction. The defendant's act falls squarely within the letter of the law, and he is technically guilty. However, courts must protect the purity of the judicial process and should refuse to hear cases where the government itself has instigated the crime. This is a matter for the court to decide, not the jury, as it concerns the integrity of the administration of justice. The defendant's predisposition is irrelevant; the focus should be exclusively on the government's misconduct, and if entrapment occurred, the court should quash the indictment.

Yes, the defense of entrapment bars conviction in this case. The evidence was sufficient to warrant a finding that the criminal design originated with the prohibition agent, who implanted in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the offense and induced its commission in order to prosecute. Sorrells was an industrious, law-abiding citizen with no previous disposition to violate the liquor laws, but was lured by the agent's repeated and persistent solicitation, taking advantage of their shared war experiences. While artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those engaged in criminal enterprises, the government cannot instigate the criminal act in an otherwise innocent person and then prosecute them for it. The focus is on the intent or predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime. The court must protect itself and the government from such gross abuse of the processes of law enforcement.

Justice McReynolds is of the opinion that the judgment below should be affirmed.

The judgment should be reversed, but for different reasons than the majority. Entrapment is not a defense that negates guilt or requires statutory interpretation to imply an exception to the offense. Rather, it is a fundamental rule of public policy that courts must preserve the purity of government and its processes by refusing to allow them to be used in an abhorrent way. When entrapment is established, the court must stop the prosecution, quash the indictment, and set the defendant at liberty, regardless of guilt. The court may submit the issue of entrapment to a jury for advice, but the power and duty to act remain with the court. Allowing entrapment as a jury issue improperly pivots conviction on the defendant's character and prior acts rather than the conduct charged.

Sorrells 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