Final Project Outline

First, we must establish that inducement was the determining factor that the accused committed the crime, and no such crime would happen if not for the inducement.

"It is well settled that officer may use decoys to entrap criminals and present an opportunity to one intending or willing to commit a crime. But decoys are not permissible to ensnare the innocent and law-abiding into the commission of a crime. When the criminal design originates, not with the accused, but is conceived in the mind of the government officers, and the accused is by persuasion, deceitful representation, or inducement lured into the commission of a criminal act, and the government is estopped by sound public policy from prosecution therefor."

Doing a background check on the accused before the prosecution is a must; we must establish that carter is a model citizen with no priors to build our case further that the inducement or tricky persuasion was the reason why the crime happened.

The first duties of the law officers are to prevent, not punish crime. It is not their duty to incite and create offense for the sole purpose of prosecuting and punishing it. Here the evidence strongly tends to prove, if it does not conclusively do so, that their first and chief endeavor was to cause, create, crime to punish it. It is unconscionable, contrary to public policy. The established law of the land to punish a man for the commission of an offense of the like of which he had never been guilty, either in thought or in-deed, and never would have been guilty of if the officers of the law had not inspired, incited, persuaded, and lured him to attempt to commit a crime.

It may be argued that there was entrapment in this case as the operation had no particular suspect and is intended to lure any person into stealing the $100 bills. In this case, Carter was merely a bystander who saw the $100 bills in Officer Grayson's bag, and the criminal intent did not originate from Carter's mind; Therefore, the entrapment defense may be valid as stated inSorrells v. the United Statesand reiterated in the United States vs. Russel.

Carter may raise the defense of entrapment defense as ruled by the Supreme Court in Sorrells v. the United States, 287 U.S 435 & United States v. Russell, 411 U.S 423. According to jurisprudence, the Entrapment Defense prohibits law enforcement officers from instigating criminal acts by otherwise innocent persons to lure them into committing crimes and punishing them, and also a violation of both his fourth and fourteenth amendment rights.

Jurisprudence provides that there is entrapment when: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. In this case, there was no particular suspect that the officers intended to catch; The officers did a scenario wherein any bystander will be lured to check and possibly steal the $100 bills inside the bag. The criminal, though, did not originate from Carter, as he had no intention of stealing when he went outside.

Furthermore, if Carter was indeed guilty, his sentence of 10 years is excessive as jurisprudence provides that as a general rule.In the theft crime, if the property stolen does not exceed $1,000, then it may only be punishable by imposition of fines or less than one year in jail.

Research Plan

• First and foremost, I will identify all the essential and relevant facts of the scenario given in order to ascertain the issues of the case.
• I will then categorize the issues and further see if there are related sub-issues to this case. In other words, I will enumerate the issues of the case and then divide these issues into procedural and substantive issues.
• I will then research on the applicable laws and jurisprudence related to the issue which is favorable to my position in the case.
• Since this is a case involving entrapment, I will first refer to the cases of Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S 435 & United States v. Russell, 411 U.S 423 which defined entrapment and enunciated that where a defendant is induced to commit a crime by authorities, such inducement is an affirmative defense to the criminal charges.
• I will likewise refer to laws governing sentencing of felons of the crime of larceny in order to formulate a thesis submitting that the 1-year sentence is excessive.
• I will then summarize and then synthesize these applicable laws and jurisprudence.
• I will then formulate an argument on how these laws and jurisprudence are applicable to the present case and how the application of these laws and jurisprudence will lead to a ruling favorable to the position I am espousing.
• I will argue in this case that Carter, in this case, was entrapped, and thus, applying the cases I referred to previously Carter is not criminally liable for the precedent cases hold that a defendant who is induced to commit a crime by authorities is not criminally liable.
• I will also point out in my arguments that assuming for the sake of argument that Carter is indeed criminally liable, the 10-year sentence is disproportionate for the length of sentence is provided after all by law and the courts cannot go in excess what is provided for by law.
• From the arguments I formulated, I will then make a final statement stating the position I am arguing for.

Explanation:

In legal research, it is first imperative that the relevant facts and issues of a case be identified. Identification of the relevant facts and key issues is important as these form the basis of what a legal researcher needs to research about. Knowing the relevant facts and key issues can be tricky at times as often, facts of a case are muddled with various facts some of which are not important and are merely trivial. Say for example, the following case scenario:

"Ricky, who has suffered from a history of child abuse and is now a father of two children, was recently arrested for theft of a motorbike. Ricky however denies stealing the motorbike that was found in his possession and instead said that it was sold to him by a certain Jones whom Ricky said was a well-known musician in California."

Here, the fact that Ricky suffered from a history of child abuse and is now a father of two children is irrelevant for what is at issue here is the crime of theft. As you have observed, narration of facts often is not straightforward and do not come with only facts relevant to the case you need to research on, therefore it is imperative that relevant facts and issues first be identified so that you will know what direction to take in your research.

After you have identified the relevant facts and issues, you must then look for the applicable statute or case law which will favor the position you are espousing in your research. If you are researching for the prosecution, look for statutes or case law which have the same analogous facts as your case and led to conviction. If you are researching for the defense, look for statutes or case law which led to acquittal under similar factual milieu to your case.

Identification of the applicable statutes or case law alone is not enough, you must also be able to summarize and synthesize these applicable statutes or case law and formulate an argument and theory as to why these statutes or cases you have referred to apply and how they apply to lead to the position you are espousing. After you have discussed these arguments and theory, end your research with a brief statement of the position you are espousing so as to clearly communicate the legal point that you are trying to make with your research.

Davis hypothetical scenario

Fact Pattern

Four officers on the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department S.C.A.T.Unit (Street Crime Attack Team) were performing a decoy operation near the intersection of Fremont Street and Casino Center Blvd. in Las Vegas on April 30, 1983, at 11:45 P.M. Officer Donna Grayson was the decoy, and Officers Smith, Yancy, and Harper were assigned to "back-up." Officer Grayson was dressed in plain clothes and was carrying a tan shoulder bag draped over her left shoulder.

Within one of the side, zippered pockets of the bag, she had placed a $5 bill and a $1 bill wrapped with a simulated $100 bill. The money, including the numbers of the simulated $100 bill, was exposed so as to be visible to persons nearby; however, the zipper was pulled tight against the money so as to require a concentrated effort to remove it

Officer Yancy, also in plain clothes, was standing approximately six to seven feet away from Officer Grayson (the decoy), near the entrance of the Horseshoe Club, when Robert Davis approached Officer Grayson from behind and asked if he could borrow a pen. Officer Grayson stated that she did not have a pen, and Davis retreated eight to ten feet. Within a few seconds, he approached a second time, asking for a piece of paper. Again the response was "no." During these approaches, Officer Yancy observed Davis reach around Officer Grayson toward the exposed cash.

Davis retreated eight to ten feet from Officer Grayson. He then motioned with his hand to two men who were another eight to ten feet away, and the trio huddled together for 15 to 30 seconds. As Davis talked with the two men, he looked up and over in the direction of Officer Grayson. Vincent Carter was one of the two men who joined Davis in this huddle.

While this trio was conversing, Officer Grayson had been waiting for the walk signal at the intersection. When the light changed, she crossed Fremont Street and proceeded southbound on the west sidewalk of Casino Center Blvd. Carter and Davis followed her, 15 to 20 feet behind. After crossing the street, Officer Grayson looked back briefly and saw Davis following her. Carter was four to seven feet behind Davis and to his right. As they walked in this formation, Carter yelled out, "Wait lady, can I talk to you for a minute." As officer Grayson turned to her right in response-seeing Carter whom she identified in court-Davis took a few quick steps to her left side, took the money with his right hand a ran.

Davis was arrested, with the marked money in his possession, by Officers Grayson and Yancy. Both were charged with larceny from the person and convicted by a jury. Carter has been sentenced to ten years in prison.

Our firm has been hired by Carter to appeal his conviction. Your supervising attorney wants to argue two things: that Carter was entrapped and that ten years is disproportionate and, therefore, cruel and unusual.

• After reviewing the research plan, Final Project Outline, and the Davis hypothetical scenario case, above.
• Draft a legal memo addressing the issues identified earlier.