United States v. Wray, 8153.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 8153.,8153. |
| Citation | 8 F.2d 429 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. WRAY et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
John M. Johnson, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Atlanta, Ga.
Paul L. Lindsay, of Atlanta, Ga., for defendants.
The evidence shows that Russell, the prohibition agent, by pretending to be a dealer in illicit whisky, induced the defendants to make several considerable sales to him; one defendant being a white man of means who conducted the business and the other a negro who made the deliveries. The indictment is for a conspiracy to violate the Prohibition Law (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10138¼ et seq.), and alleges that the two defendants conspired with one another, and also with Russell, to this end. A directed verdict of not guilty is moved on two grounds: (1) That there has been an unlawful entrapment of the defendants; and (2) that the misdemeanor of selling whisky cannot be aggravated into a felony by charging a conspiracy with a representative of the government.
1. The first point is not well taken. Much confusion of thought has been occasioned by the use of the word "entrapment" in this connection. Whenever an officer of the law, by any plan or contrivance, or opportunity presented, causes a person to commit a crime in which he is detected, the officer entraps the criminal. It may also be said that the particular offense would not have been committed except for the act of the officer. Nevertheless, it is well settled, when it is suspected that a crime is being committed and the question is as to who the guilty persons are, that traps may be laid and baited as by decoy letters, by opportunity to sell whisky or morphine, in order to catch the guilty person. On the other hand, officers of the United States may not induce persons, who would not otherwise have committed crime, to violate the laws and then prosecute for it. A sound public policy and a decent fairness forbid it. It is not, therefore, properly speaking, the entrapment of a criminal that the law frowns down, but the seduction by its officers to commit crime. A suspected person may be tested by being offered opportunity to transgress in such manner as is usual therein, but may not be put under extraordinary temptation or inducement. Thus a morphine peddler usually deals with addicts. An officer, in testing a supposed peddler, may properly pretend to be an addict, with their common discomforts and craving for the drug, thus giving color to the ruse, and he may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Anthony
...United States v. Smolin, 2 Cir., 1950, 182 F.2d 782, 786; United States v. Clark, D.C.W.D.Mo. 1908, 164 F. 75, at page 77; United States v. Wray, D.C.1925, 8 F.2d 429. * a good discussion. 5 As to double jeopardy, identical offenses and similarity of evidence, see Pinkerton v. United States......
-
State v. Mazur
...920, 926-927 (1959); 15A C.J.S., Conspiracy § 37 (1967); see also, O'Brien v. United States, 51 F.2d 674 (7 Cir. 1931); United States v. Wray, 8 F.2d 429 (D.C.Ga.1925). The rationale underlying these decisions is that "(a) conspiracy requires an agreement by at least two people. When one of......
-
U.S. v. Escobar de Bright
...can be no indictable conspiracy with a government informer who secretly intends to frustrate the conspiracy." (citing United States v. Wray, 8 F.2d 429 (N.D.Ga.1925)). The Fifth Circuit held that, because the jury could have concluded from the evidence that the defendant conspired only with......
-
United States v. Chase
...Review 380 (1959); Note, 33 Tulane Law Review 393 (1959). See also, O'Brien v. United States, 51 F.2d 674 (7 Cir. 1931); United States v. Wray, 8 F.2d 429 (D.C.Ga.1925). The government also contends that evidence of events subsequent to April 5, 1965 was properly received to establish knowl......
-
Race, Entrapment, and Manufacturing 'Homegrown Terrorism
...selling prior to interacting with the agents). 124. 287 U.S. 435 (1932). 125. See Lucadamo , 280 F. at 657–58; United States v. Wray, 8 F.2d 429, 430 (N.D. Ga. 1925). 126. See 287 U.S. at 451. 127. United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194, 205 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Sorrells , 287 U.S. at 44......