United States v. Russell
411 U.S. 423 (1973)
Rule of Law:
The defense of entrapment focuses on the subjective predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime, rather than on the objective nature of the government's conduct. Supplying an essential, but not unobtainable, ingredient for a crime to a predisposed defendant is not entrapment as a matter of law.
Facts:
- Joe Shapiro, an undercover federal narcotics agent, met with Richard Russell and his codefendants, John and Patrick Connolly, to investigate a suspected methamphetamine laboratory.
- Shapiro offered to supply the defendants with phenyl-2-propanone, a scarce but legal chemical essential for manufacturing methamphetamine, in exchange for one-half of the drug produced.
- During their meeting, Patrick Connolly stated he had been producing the drug for several months and provided Shapiro with a sample from a previous batch.
- Shapiro observed an empty bottle labeled phenyl-2-propanone at the lab, indicating the defendants had prior access to the chemical.
- Shapiro later provided the defendants with 100 grams of the chemical as agreed.
- Russell and Patrick Connolly used the chemical supplied by Shapiro to manufacture two batches of methamphetamine while Shapiro observed.
- Russell kept half of the finished drug and sold a portion of his share to Shapiro.
- A subsequent search of the laboratory revealed two additional bottles of phenyl-2-propanone that had not been supplied by Shapiro, confirming the defendants had other sources for the ingredient.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Russell was charged in the U.S. District Court with unlawfully manufacturing and selling methamphetamine.
- At trial, Russell's sole defense was entrapment, but a jury found him guilty on all counts.
- Russell, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, reversed the conviction, holding that the government's act of supplying an essential ingredient for the crime constituted entrapment as a matter of law.
- The United States, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the government's conduct of supplying an essential and scarce, but not otherwise unobtainable, ingredient for the manufacture of an illegal drug constitute entrapment as a matter of law, thereby barring the prosecution of a defendant who was predisposed to commit the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No. The government's conduct of supplying an essential ingredient for an illegal drug to a predisposed defendant does not constitute entrapment as a matter of law. Reaffirming the subjective standard from Sorrells v. United States and Sherman v. United States, the Court held that the principal element of the entrapment defense is the defendant's lack of predisposition to commit the crime. Russell conceded he was predisposed, as evidenced by his ongoing drug manufacturing operation before, during, and after the agent's involvement. The agent's conduct in supplying a scarce but legal and obtainable chemical was a permissible investigatory tactic to infiltrate a continuing criminal enterprise. While the Court acknowledged that some government conduct could be so outrageous as to violate due process, this case did not reach that level.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
Yes. The government's conduct constitutes entrapment because by supplying an essential chemical ingredient, the United States became an active participant and instigator of the unlawful activity. Adopting the objective view of entrapment, this opinion argues that the government's role in furnishing a necessary component makes it a partner in the crime, regardless of the defendant's predisposition or whether the chemical could have been obtained elsewhere. Federal agents play a debased role when they become the instigators of a crime or the creative brain behind an illegal scheme, and courts should be closed to the trial of a crime instigated by the government's own agents.
Dissenting - Justice Stewart
Yes. The government's conduct constitutes entrapment as a matter of law because the focus of the entrapment defense should be on the objective nature of the government's actions, not the subjective predisposition of the defendant. This opinion advocates for the 'objective test,' which asks whether police conduct falls below acceptable standards and is likely to instigate a crime. The subjective test is flawed because it allows prejudicial evidence of a defendant's past conduct and reputation to be admitted to prove predisposition. In this case, the government agent's actions—supplying a scarce and essential ingredient for the specific crime charged—constituted the impermissible 'manufacturing of crime,' which the entrapment defense is meant to prevent.
Analysis:
This decision firmly established the 'subjective test' as the controlling standard for the entrapment defense in federal courts, rejecting the 'objective test' favored by the dissenters and some lower courts. By prioritizing the defendant's predisposition, the ruling makes it significantly harder for defendants who are already involved in criminal activity to claim entrapment, even when the government's involvement is substantial. The majority's opinion did, however, leave open the possibility of a separate due process defense for 'outrageous government conduct,' creating a distinct, albeit extremely high, standard for challenging extreme law enforcement tactics in the future.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Russell (1973)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"