The long-established, presently prevailing majority rule associated with the majority opinions in the three United States Supreme Court cases, Sorrells, Sherman, and Russell, has been termed the 'subjective' test. United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 440, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 1647, 36 L.Ed.2d 366, 378 (Mr. Justice Stewart dissenting). In the majority view, the inquiry on entrapment is concerned primarily with the element of defendant's predisposition: whether it was his own original intent to commit the crime charged. The defense must show that the actions of the police went further than those necessary to produce evidence of the defendant's criminality. 1 However, where the state can show the defendant's 'predisposition' by evidence of (a) defendant's active solicitation to commit the crime, (b) prior criminal convictions, or (c) prior criminal activity not resulting in conviction (as here), or (d) defendant's criminal reputation, or by any other adequate means the challenged conduct of the state's officers is mitigated or excused, and the defense of entrapment is not proved. The issue has traditionally been submitted to the jury for determination following instructions from the court based on the 'subjective' approach.See State v. Grilli, 230 N.W. 2d 445, 452 (1975).
Angry that his friend was still being held, McKay told Darby that he and Crowder had made some Molotov cocktails (i.e., bottled gasoline bombs) and that he was planning on throwing them at cop cars parked in a parking lot.So looking at the actions, what police activity occured? First, do we have evidence Darby told the defendants to make Molotov cocktails? The Austin American Statesman article seems to indicate that they made the gasoline bombs, then told Darby about it. Therefore, it appears that Darby did not induce them to make the bombs.
According to the partial transcript in the affidavit, Darby asked McKay, "What if there's a cop sleeping in the car?" "He'll wake up," replied McKay. "What if he doesn't?" Darby asked. McKay was silent. Darby pressed on, asking McKay if he would "leave the scene with a cop burning or dying." McKay answered, "Yes." And then, again, according to a partial transcript of the recorded conversation, McKay told Darby that it was "worth it if a cop gets burned or maimed." These words, along with eight Molotov cocktails found in the basement of the house in which McKay was crashing, have him facing up to 30 years in federal prison for charges related to possession and assembly of "unregistered firearms," as the weapons are defined by federal law.
This publication is not a law book. Rather, it is intended as a “user friendly” reference book enabling the user to quickly find answers to questions concerning the NFA [National Firearms Act]. Nevertheless, it should also be useful to attorneys seeking basic information about the NFA and how the law has been interpreted by ATF. The book’s Table of Contents will be helpful to the user in locating needed information.posted by BobbyVan at 10:15 AM on September 8, 2011
« Older These are collections of art inspired outfits for ... | Architectural theorist David G... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by maryr at 7:34 AM on September 8, 2011 [14 favorites]