| Jacobson v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 6, 1991 Decided April 6, 1992 | |
| Full case name | Keith Jacobson, Petitioner v. United States |
| Citations | 503 U.S. 540 (more) 112 S. Ct. 1535; 118 L. Ed. 2d 174; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 2117; 60 U.S.L.W. 4307; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2901; 92 Daily Journal DAR 4584; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 166 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska; Conviction reversed United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 893 F.2d 999 (8th Cir. 1990); Conviction affirmed, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 916 F.2d 467 (8th Cir. 1990) (en banc); certiorari granted, 499 U.S. 974 (1991). |
| Subsequent | Conviction reversed |
| Holding | |
| The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was predisposed to commit a crime prior to any contact with government agents in order to overcome entrapment defense; defendant's prior commission of acts later prohibited that were legal at the time did not establish evidence of predisposition sufficient to overcome entrapment defense where no evidence existed of commission of crimes independent of solicitation to do so by agents. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Blackmun, Stevens, Souter, Thomas |
| Dissent | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy; Scalia (except part II) |
| Laws applied | |
| Entrapment case law | |
Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the criminal procedure topic of entrapment. A narrowly divided court overturned the conviction of a Nebraska man for receiving child sexual abuse material through the mail, ruling that postal inspectors had implanted a desire to do so through repeated written entreaties.
It was the first time the court had considered an entrapment case from outside the realm of controlled-substance enforcement, or one involving conduct that had only recently been criminalized. By relying exclusively on whether the defendant had a predisposition to commit the crime, the court appeared to have finally resolved a lingering issue in its previous decisions on the subject.[1]
The decision was seen as a rare triumph for defendants before a conservative court that frequently sided with prosecutors.[2] Guidelines for federal law enforcement agents were changed in its wake,[3] and it was described as having brought entrapment "back from the dead."[4]
- ^ Lord, Kenneth; Entrapment and Due Process: Moving Toward A Dual System of Defenses Archived 2007-06-21 at the Wayback Machine, 25 Fl St. U. Law Rev. 473, 1998.
- ^ Greenhouse, Linda; April 7, 1992; Justices, in Entrapment Case, Cast a Rare Vote Against Prosecutors; The New York Times; retrieved August 15, 2006
- ^ Chin, Id., 30, citing Attorney General’s Guidelines on FBI Undercover Operations (Dec. 31, 1980), reprinted in Select Committee to Study Undercover Activities of the Department of Justice, S. Rep. 97-682, at 551 (1982) and The Attorney General’s Guidelines on Federal Bureau of Investigation Undercover Operations Archived 2008-03-12 at the Wayback Machine (May 30, 2002).
- ^ Paul Marcus, "Presenting, Back from the [Almost] Dead, the Entrapment Defense", 47 Fla L Rev 205 (1995). Cited in Gabriel J. Chin, The Story of Jacobson v United States: Catching Criminals or Creating Crime?, Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper N. 06-12, February 2006, retrieved August 10, 2006, 31. This draft is described as a chapter in the forthcoming Criminal Law Stories. 31.