Quick Summary
Keith Jacobson (defendant) purchased adult magazines and later became the subject of a lengthy government sting operation aimed at testing his willingness to violate new anti-child pornography laws. After being induced by fake organizations created by undercover agencies, he ordered child pornography and was arrested and convicted.
The issue before the United States Supreme Court was whether Jacobson was entrapped by the government’s actions. The Court concluded that Jacobson’s predisposition to commit the offense was not independent of the government’s intervention and reversed his conviction.
Facts of the Case
Keith Jacobson (defendant), a Nebraska farmer, legally purchased adult magazines which, to his surprise, contained photos of young boys. Subsequent to his purchase, Congress enacted an anti-child pornography law, criminalizing the distribution of such material.
Jacobson’s name was found on the bookstore’s mailing list by postal inspectors, leading to a 26-month government operation aimed at determining his willingness to violate the new law. Undercover agencies created fictitious organizations promoting sexual freedom and criticizing censorship, which sent Jacobson materials and questionnaires probing his interests in sexually explicit content, including child pornography.
Over time, Jacobson expressed interest in sexually explicit material involving teenagers and criticized government censorship. Eventually, the government, posing as a fake organization, enticed Jacobson to order a pornographic magazine depicting minors engaging in sexual activity.
Upon receiving the magazine, Jacobson was arrested. Notably, no evidence other than government-sent materials indicated Jacobson’s interest in child pornography.
Procedural History
- Jacobson was indicted for violating the Child Protection Act of 1984.
- He presented an entrapment defense at trial and was convicted.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- Jacobson appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the government’s conduct amounted to entrapment by inducing Jacobson to commit a crime he was not predisposed to commit.
Rule of Law
The government may not originate a criminal design or induce an innocent person to commit a crime they would not otherwise have been likely to commit.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court focused on whether the government overstepped its bounds by inducing Jacobson to commit a crime, rather than merely providing an opportunity for him to commit a crime he was already predisposed to commit. The Court examined the lengthy and suggestive nature of the government’s operation against Jacobson over 26 months.
It concluded that the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jacobson’s predisposition to commit the crime was independent of the government’s actions.
The Court emphasized that the only evidence of Jacobson’s predisposition came after extensive government-initiated communication that arguably implanted the disposition to engage in illegal activity. The Supreme Court found that this conduct constituted entrapment because it was the government’s actions, not Jacobson’s own predisposition, that led to the commission of the crime.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment, ruling that the government failed to prove that Jacobson had a predisposition to commit the crime independent of the government’s intervention.
Dissenting Opinions
Justice O’Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and partially by Justice Scalia, dissented. They argued that Jacobson demonstrated predisposition by readily responding to opportunities to buy child pornography without any overt coercion from the government agents.
Key Takeaways
- The government is prohibited from inducing an individual to commit a crime they would not otherwise have been predisposed to commit.
- Entrapment occurs when the government’s conduct causes an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime.
- A valid entrapment defense can lead to a reversal of conviction if it is shown that the defendant’s criminal action was primarily due to government inducement rather than personal predisposition.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What constitutes entrapment in a legal context, and how does it differ from mere government sting operations?
Entrapment occurs when law enforcement convinces a person to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. In contrast, a sting operation is designed to catch individuals already willing to commit a crime.
- For example: A police officer encouraging someone who has no history of drug sales to sell drugs specifically for an arrest would be entrapment. However, setting up a fake drug buy from a known dealer who has been actively selling would constitute a sting operation.
How does the law determine whether an individual was predisposed to commit a crime before being approached by government agents?
The law looks at the individual’s behavior and statements prior to any government intervention to determine if there is evidence of a predisposition to commit the alleged crime.
- For example: If someone frequently expresses interest in buying illegal firearms and searches online for sellers, it suggests predisposition. If later approached by an undercover agent offering firearms, their previous actions support that the crime was not purely induced by the sting.
In which ways can the defense of entrapment be effectively raised in court?
The defense must showcase evidence indicating that the accused would not have committed the crime if not for the government’s inducement and deception. Furthermore, demonstrating lack of prior interest or engagement in similar criminal activities helps substantiate the claim.
- For example: An individual with no history of fraud who is tricked by government agents into participating in what they were misled to believe was a legitimate business venture, only to be charged with fraud, could raise an entrapment defense.
References
Was this case brief helpful?