• Review theDavis hypothetical scenario
• Review yourresearch plan
• Begin your research on the issues.
• provide an outline for your legal memorandum.

Using the plan below, begin your research and develop an outline for your memo.

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 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. the 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 to 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.

Davis hypothetical scenario below

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.