Entrapment happens, even in Lehigh County. But, it is rare to prove and rare to prevail upon. It is up to your Lehigh County criminal lawyer to make sure he or she knows how to protect your rights from entrapment.
In a particularly important case from the Supreme Court, the defendant was convicted of two counts of distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 84(a)(1) in the district court. The court of appeals affirmed. The case arose from two sales of heroin by defendant to agents of the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The defendant contended that he neither intended to sell nor knew that he was dealing in heroin and that all of the drugs he sold were supplied by a government informant. The defendant further contended that if the jury had believed that the drug was supplied by the government information that he should have been acquitted. The United States Supreme Court held that defendant could be convicted for the sale of contraband which he procured from a government informant or agent. Defendant's counsel conceded on appeal that defendant was predisposed to commit the offense. Hence, his predisposition rendered the defense of entrapment unavailable to him and the court determined that the judgment was affirmed. Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (U.S. 1976)
An important Pennsylvania case is Commonwealth v. Bonace, 391 Pa. Super. 602 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990). In this case, the Commonwealth prosecuted the appellant for burglary, theft by unlawful taking, and criminal conspiracy, of which he was convicted. Appellant asked an individual to participate in the commission of several burglaries. The individual purported to agree but went to authorities. Appellant was arrested after commission of a burglary, rather than before, due to faulty surveillance equipment. The court held that the police involvement in the criminal activity was not so outrageous that the prosecution was barred on due process grounds. The police did nothing more than allow the appellant to commit the criminal acts before he was arrested. The court next stated that whether to declare a mistrial rested in the sound discretion of the trial court. The court concluded that only one of appellant's four asserted references to a prior bad act caused the trial court to give an instruction to disregard a witness' answer. Further, the court found no abuse of discretion occurred in not granting a mistrial because appellant's counsel elicited the remark; it was a fair response to the question asked, and appellee did not attempt to take advantage of the reference. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment.