Jacobson v. United States
Decision Date | 06 April 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 90-1124,90-1124 |
Citation | 112 S.Ct. 1535,503 U.S. 540,118 L.Ed.2d 174 |
Parties | Keith JACOBSON, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
At a time when federal law permitted such conduct, petitioner Jacobson ordered and received from a bookstore two Bare Boys magazines containing photographs of nude preteen and teenage boys. Subsequently, the Child Protection Act of 1984 made illegal the receipt through the mails of sexually explicit depictions of children. After finding Jacobson's name on the bookstore mailing list, two Government agencies sent mail to him through five fictitious organizations and a bogus pen pal, to explore his willingness to break the law. Many of those organizations represented that they were founded to protect and promote sexual freedom and freedom of choice and that they promoted lobbying efforts through catalog sales. Some mailings raised the spectre of censorship. Jacobson responded to some of the correspondence. After 21/2 years on the Government mailing list, Jacobson was solicited to order child pornography. He answered a letter that described concern about child pornography as hysterical nonsense and decried international censorship, and then received a catalog and ordered a magazine depicting young boys engaged in sexual activities. He was arrested after a controlled delivery of a photocopy of the magazine, but a search of his house revealed no materials other than those sent by the Government and the Bare Boys magazines. At his jury trial, he pleaded entrapment and testified that he had been curious to know the type of sexual actions to which the last letter referred and that he had been shocked by the Bare Boys magazines because he had not expected to receive photographs of minors. He was convicted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: The prosecution failed, as a matter of law, to adduce evidence to support the jury verdict that Jacobson was predisposed, independent of the Government's acts and beyond a reasonable doubt, to violate the law by receiving child pornography through the mails. In their zeal to enforce the law, Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 442, 53 S.Ct. 210, 212, 77 L.Ed. 413. Jacobson was not simply offered the opportunity to order pornography, after which he promptly availed himself of that opportunity. He was the target of 26 months of repeated Government mailings and communications and the Government has failed to carry its burden of proving predisposition independent of its attention. The preinvestigation evidence—the Bare Boys magazines—merely indicates a generic inclination to act within a broad range, not all of which is criminal. Furthermore, Jacobson was acting within the law when he received the magazines, and he testified that he did not know that they would depict minors. As for the evidence gathered during the investigation, Jacobson's responses to the many communications prior to the criminal act were at most indicative of certain personal inclinations and would not support the inference that Jacobson was predisposed to violate the Child Protection Act. On the other hand, the strong arguable inference is that, by waving the banner of individual rights and disparaging the legitimacy and constitutionality of efforts to restrict the availability of sexually explicit materials, the Government not only excited Jacobson's interest in material banned by law but also exerted substantial pressure on him to obtain and read such material as part of the fight against censorship and the infringement of individual rights. Thus, rational jurors could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Jacobson possessed the requisite predisposition before the Government's investigation and that it existed independent of the Government's many and varied approaches to him. Pp. 548-554.
916 F.2d 467 (CA 8 1990), reversed.
George H. Moyer, Jr., Madison, Neb., for petitioner.
Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Washington, D.C., for respondent.
On September 24, 1987, petitioner Keith Jacobson was indicted for violating a provision of the Child Protection Act of 1984, Pub.L. 98-292, 98 Stat. 204 (Act), which criminalizes the knowing receipt through the mails of a "visual depiction [that] involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. . . ." 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)(A). Petitioner defended on the ground that the Government entrapped him into committing the crime through a series of communications from undercover agents that spanned the 26 months preceding his arrest. Petitioner was found guilty after a jury trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, holding that the Government had carried its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner was predisposed to break the law and hence was not entrapped.
Because the Government overstepped the line between setting a trap for the "unwary innocent" and the "unwary criminal," Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 372, 78 S.Ct. 819, 821, 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958), and as a matter of law failed to establish that petitioner was independently predisposed to commit the crime for which he was arrested, we reverse the Court of Appeals' judgment affirming his conviction.
In February 1984, petitioner, a 56-year-old veteran-turned-farmer who supported his elderly father in Nebraska, ordered two magazines and a brochure from a California adult bookstore. The magazines, entitled Bare Boys I and Bare Boys II, contained photographs of nude preteen and teenage boys. The contents of the magazines startled petitioner, who testified that he had expected to receive photographs of "young men 18 years or older." Tr. 425. On cross-examination, he explained his response to the magazines:
. . . . .
The young men depicted in the magazines were not engaged in sexual activity, and petitioner's receipt of the magazines was legal under both federal and Nebraska law. Within three months, the law with respect to child pornography changed; Congress passed the Act illegalizing the receipt through the mails of sexually explicit depictions of children. In the very month that the new provision became law, postal inspectors found petitioner's name on the mailing list of the California bookstore that had mailed him Bare Boys I and II. There followed over the next 21/2 years, repeated efforts by two Government agencies, through five fictitious organizations and a bogus pen pal, to explore petitioner's willingness to break the new law by ordering sexually explicit photographs of children through the mail.
The Government began its efforts in January 1985 when a postal inspector sent petitioner a letter supposedly from the American Hedonist Society, which in fact was a fictitious organization. The letter included a membership application and stated the Society's doctrine: that members had the "right to read what we desire, the right to discuss similar interests with those who share our philosophy, and finally that we have the right to seek pleasure without restrictions being placed on us by outdated puritan morality." Record, Government Exhibit 7. Petitioner enrolled in the organization and returned a sexual attitude questionnaire that asked him to rank on a scale of one to four his enjoyment of various sexual materials, with one being "really enjoy," two being "enjoy," three being "somewhat enjoy," and four being "do not enjoy." Petitioner ranked the entry "[p]re-teen sex" as a two, but indicated that he was opposed to pedophilia. Ibid.
For a time, the Government left petitioner alone. But then a new "prohibited mail specialist" in the Postal Service found petitioner's name in a file, Tr. 328-331, and in May 1986, petitioner received a solicitation from a second fictitious consumer research company, "Midlands Data Research," seeking a response from those who "believe in the joys of sex and the complete awareness of those lusty and youthful lads and lasses of the neophite [sic] age." Record, Government Exhibit 8. The letter never explained whether "neophite" referred to minors or young adults. Petitioner responded: Ibid.
Petitioner then heard from yet another Government creation, "Heartland Institute for a New Tomorrow" (HINT), which proclaimed that it was Id., Defendant's Exhibit 102. The letter also enclosed a second survey. Petitioner indicated that his interest in "[p]reteen sex-homosexual" material was above average, but not high. In response to another question, petitioner wrote: Id., Government Exhibit 9.
"HINT" replied, portraying itself as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bala v. Stenehjem
...(citing United States v. Jacobson, 916 F.2d 467, 469 (8th Cir.1990), overruled on other grounds by Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 112 S.Ct. 1535, 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992)); United States v. Trayer, 898 F.2d 805, 808 b) TAKING WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION The Plaintiffs allege that form......
-
State v. Johnson
...to his own devices, likely would have never run afoul of the law, the courts should intervene." Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, ----, 112 S.Ct. 1535, 1543, 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992); see Call for Reform, supra, 21 Rutgers L.J. at 440 (defendant is less culpable when enticed into commi......
-
United States v. Lindberg
...to commit the offenses, as they were ready and willing to offer a bribe when given an opportunity. See Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 550, 112 S.Ct. 1535, 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992) (holding "where the defendant is simply provided with the opportunity to commit a crime, the entrapment......
-
United States v. Smith
...to enforce the law" and "afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of [an] offense." Jacobson v. United States , 503 U.S. 540, 548, 112 S.Ct. 1535, 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992). In doing so, however, the government "may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's ......
-
Race, Entrapment, and Manufacturing 'Homegrown Terrorism
...(1958); United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 436 (1973); Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 62 (1988); Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548–50 (1992). 108. See United States v. Joost, 92 F.3d 7, 12 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Fedroff, 874 F.2d 178, 183–85 (3d Cir. 1989)......
-
Rethinking Police Expertise.
...for the United States, supra note 192, at 7. (196.) Transcript of Proceedings, supra note 47, at 554. (197.) Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 545 (1992). (198.) Transcript of May 1, 2012 Motion Hearing at 59, United States v. Mohamud, No. 3:10-01-00475-KI (D. Or. Oct. 22, 2012). (19......
-
Federal criminal conspiracy.
...and any more than the government providing an occasion for him to commit money laundering (citing Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 547 (113.) Entrapment by estoppel occurs when defendant reasonably believes he was acting with the permission of a government official but is later char......
-
Inverting the First Amendment.
...prosecutors have been extraordinarily aggressive in pursuing suspected child pornography users. See, e.g., Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992) (overturning a child pornography conviction because of aggressive prosecutorial (187) 458 U.S. at 773. The Court has adhered to the notio......