Posted by Natalie Dorley.
The case of Sherman v. United States looks like a case of entrapment. Entrapment is when a “law enforcement official” forces another individual to perform an illegal activity that they would not normally do (if they were not under forced pretenses).
The defendant ended up being charged with the sale of narcotics. “A government informant and defendant initially met in a hospital where they both were being treated for drug addiction.” Since both the defendant and the government informant were very vulnerable due to their drug addiction, it is no surprise that one of the parties looked for a way to fulfill their addiction.
The government lured the defendant by expressing how he was suffering and continuously “pressed the issue.” The defendant eventually gave in to the informant. He got in contact with his drug supplier and gave the drugs to the informant. At trial, the defendant claimed entrapment as his defense. The main issue in court was whether or not if the conviction should be based on entrapment at all.
In my opinion, I feel as if this case was a case of entrapment. It is the law enforcement’s job to protect the public from crime. The fact that the official pressed on forcing someone else to get drugs for them is in violation of their duty.
The holding stated this, “The informant clearly induced the crime in this case. The informant attempted multiple times to create the crime after multiple rejections and did so in the context of a recovering drug addict, whose ability to refuse was comparatively reduced.”
The informant was well aware of their actions. The defendant had every right to claim this as entrapment.
Natalie is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.