Sherman v. United States
Encyclopedia
Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369
(1958), was a United States Supreme Court case on the issue of entrapment
. Unanimously, the Court overturned the conviction of a recovering
New York drug addict who had been repeatedly solicited for drug sales by a fellow former addict who was working with federal agents.
The case was a virtual replay of Sorrells v. United States
, the 1932 case in which the justices had first recognized entrapment as a defense. As in that case, all agreed the defendant had been entrapped, but the majority and a separate concurrence were at odds over what the best grounding for the entrapment defense was.
's office where they were both getting treatment for their addiction. They talked about drugs, and Kalchinian eventually asked Sherman if he could get him some as his own methadone
program wasn't working. Sherman resisted, citing his own efforts to get clean.
On later chance encounters, Kalchinian continued to entreat Sherman, encountering similar resistance. Finally, in November, he gave in. Kalchinian informed agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
(a predecessor to today's Drug Enforcement Administration
) whom he had been working with in hopes of lightening his sentence
on a pending drug charge, that he had another seller for them. After three drug deals, Sherman was arrested.
had been improperly instructed on entrapment. A retrial led to another conviction, which was sustained by the appellate court.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari
, limited to the entrapment question.
had in Sorrells, Warren spoke for the Court. "To determine whether entrapment has been established, a line must be drawn between the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal", he said. "We conclude from the evidence that entrapment was established as a matter of law ... We reach our conclusion from the undisputed testimony of the prosecution's witnesses." Kalchinian clearly induced Sherman, and "not only procured a source of narcotics but apparently also induced petitioner to return to the habit".
He scoffed at prosecution arguments that the government was not responsible for Kalchinian's actions. While he was not being paid, he clearly had dealings with the agents in the form of the leniency he was hoping for. Warren noted that the agent in charge of Kalchinian admitted at trial that he didn't inquire about how Kalchinian was getting his sellers. "Law enforcement does not require methods such as this," he concluded.
Sherman's two prior drug convictions did not prove the "ready complaisance" the government claimed he demonstrated, since only one was for dealing and that was nine years old. Warren also found Sherman's efforts to seek treatment, the absence of any drugs in his apartment
when it was searched and his failure to profit from the sales to be significant in establishing that he did not have a predisposition to break the law. "The Government's characterization of petitioner's hesitancy to Kalchinian's request as the natural wariness of the criminal cannot fill the evidentiary void," he added.
He declined to reassess the alternative, objective test of entrapment proposed by Justice Owen Roberts
in his Sorrells concurrence, that the focus should be on how the government acted rather than the defendant's state of mind. He believed that such a focus would unnecessarily burden prosecutors as they would not be able to raise predisposition in response to any defense attempt to examine police conduct; and that lower courts had ruled that juries should be allowed to consider entrapment, not judges as Roberts had proposed. "To dispose of this case on the ground suggested would entail both overruling a leading decision of this Court and brushing aside the possibility that we would be creating more problems than we would supposedly be solving," he said in conclusion.
, John Marshall Harlan II
and newly-appointed William Brennan
, argued nonetheless for Roberts' objective test of locating entrapment in the manner in which the government agents carried out their investigation. "(We fail) to give the doctrine of entrapment the solid foundation that the decisions of the lower courts and criticism of learned writers have clearly shown is needed," he said. Lower courts, he noted, had either ignored the Sorrells standard altogether and focused on narrow facts of the case, or failed to come up with a generalized rule, which was proof enough that it needed to be reassessed.
Congress had passed criminal laws, he asserted, not because it wanted to regulate the means by which the prohibited activities were curtailed but because it wanted to make the actions criminal. "The courts refuse to convict an entrapped defendant, not because his conduct falls outside the proscription of the statute, but because, even if his guilt be admitted, the methods employed on behalf of the Government to bring about conviction cannot be countenanced," he reminded his colleagues, foreshadowing the "outrageous government conduct" theory that Justice William Rehnquist
would inadvertently create almost two decades later in United States v. Russell
. That, he said, was exactly what the Court had done in this case, expressing its revulsion at the manipulative actions of Kalchinian, which he described as "particularly reprehensible", and the FBN's cavalier attitude toward his freelancing.
In addition, he made two other objections: that defendants might choose to forgo the defense despite the facts of the case out of fear that an inquiry into their predisposition to offend would allow the prosecution to bring up prior bad acts that might not otherwise be relevant, and that jury verdicts of entrapment were not as reliable in deriving precedent
for future cases.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1958), was a United States Supreme Court case on the issue of entrapment
Entrapment
In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability...
. Unanimously, the Court overturned the conviction of a recovering
Recovery
-Health:* Healing* Cure* The Recovery model of mental distress/disorder* Recovery International, a self-help mental health program based on the work of the late Abraham A...
New York drug addict who had been repeatedly solicited for drug sales by a fellow former addict who was working with federal agents.
The case was a virtual replay of Sorrells v. United States
Sorrells v. United States
Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 , is a Supreme Court case in which the justices unanimously recognized the entrapment defense...
, the 1932 case in which the justices had first recognized entrapment as a defense. As in that case, all agreed the defendant had been entrapped, but the majority and a separate concurrence were at odds over what the best grounding for the entrapment defense was.
Background of the case
In late August 1951, Kalchinian, a recovering drug addict, met Sherman at a doctorPhysician
A physician is a health care provider who practices the profession of medicine, which is concerned with promoting, maintaining or restoring human health through the study, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, injury and other physical and mental impairments...
's office where they were both getting treatment for their addiction. They talked about drugs, and Kalchinian eventually asked Sherman if he could get him some as his own methadone
Methadone
Methadone is a synthetic opioid, used medically as an analgesic and a maintenance anti-addictive for use in patients with opioid dependency. It was developed in Germany in 1937...
program wasn't working. Sherman resisted, citing his own efforts to get clean.
On later chance encounters, Kalchinian continued to entreat Sherman, encountering similar resistance. Finally, in November, he gave in. Kalchinian informed agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
Federal Bureau of Narcotics
The Federal Bureau of Narcotics was an agency of the United States Department of the Treasury. Established in the Department of the Treasury by an act of June 14, 1930 consolidating the functions of the Federal Narcotics Control Board and the Narcotic Division...
(a predecessor to today's Drug Enforcement Administration
Drug Enforcement Administration
The Drug Enforcement Administration is a federal law enforcement agency under the United States Department of Justice, tasked with combating drug smuggling and use within the United States...
) whom he had been working with in hopes of lightening his sentence
Sentence (law)
In law, a sentence forms the final explicit act of a judge-ruled process, and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function. The sentence can generally involve a decree of imprisonment, a fine and/or other punishments against a defendant convicted of a crime...
on a pending drug charge, that he had another seller for them. After three drug deals, Sherman was arrested.
Lower courts
Federal prosecutors put on Kalchinian and the government agents working with him. Sherman's defense built their case around entrapment and merely recalled Kalchinian. A conviction was overturned on appeal when it was found that the juryJury
A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt, or lack thereof, in a crime. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty,...
had been improperly instructed on entrapment. A retrial led to another conviction, which was sustained by the appellate court.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
, limited to the entrapment question.
Majority
As Charles Evans HughesCharles Evans Hughes
Charles Evans Hughes, Sr. was an American statesman, lawyer and Republican politician from New York. He served as the 36th Governor of New York , Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States , United States Secretary of State , a judge on the Court of International Justice , and...
had in Sorrells, Warren spoke for the Court. "To determine whether entrapment has been established, a line must be drawn between the trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal", he said. "We conclude from the evidence that entrapment was established as a matter of law ... We reach our conclusion from the undisputed testimony of the prosecution's witnesses." Kalchinian clearly induced Sherman, and "not only procured a source of narcotics but apparently also induced petitioner to return to the habit".
He scoffed at prosecution arguments that the government was not responsible for Kalchinian's actions. While he was not being paid, he clearly had dealings with the agents in the form of the leniency he was hoping for. Warren noted that the agent in charge of Kalchinian admitted at trial that he didn't inquire about how Kalchinian was getting his sellers. "Law enforcement does not require methods such as this," he concluded.
Sherman's two prior drug convictions did not prove the "ready complaisance" the government claimed he demonstrated, since only one was for dealing and that was nine years old. Warren also found Sherman's efforts to seek treatment, the absence of any drugs in his apartment
Apartment
An apartment or flat is a self-contained housing unit that occupies only part of a building...
when it was searched and his failure to profit from the sales to be significant in establishing that he did not have a predisposition to break the law. "The Government's characterization of petitioner's hesitancy to Kalchinian's request as the natural wariness of the criminal cannot fill the evidentiary void," he added.
He declined to reassess the alternative, objective test of entrapment proposed by Justice Owen Roberts
Owen Josephus Roberts
Owen Josephus Roberts was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court for fifteen years. He also led the fact-finding commission that investigated the attack on Pearl Harbor. At the time of World War II, he was the only Republican appointed Judge on the Supreme Court of the United...
in his Sorrells concurrence, that the focus should be on how the government acted rather than the defendant's state of mind. He believed that such a focus would unnecessarily burden prosecutors as they would not be able to raise predisposition in response to any defense attempt to examine police conduct; and that lower courts had ruled that juries should be allowed to consider entrapment, not judges as Roberts had proposed. "To dispose of this case on the ground suggested would entail both overruling a leading decision of this Court and brushing aside the possibility that we would be creating more problems than we would supposedly be solving," he said in conclusion.
Concurrence
Frankfurter's concurring opinion, in which he was joined by Justices William O. DouglasWilliam O. Douglas
William Orville Douglas was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. With a term lasting 36 years and 209 days, he is the longest-serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court...
, John Marshall Harlan II
John Marshall Harlan II
John Marshall Harlan was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from 1955 to 1971. His namesake was his grandfather John Marshall Harlan, another associate justice who served from 1877 to 1911.Harlan was a student at Upper Canada College and Appleby College and...
and newly-appointed William Brennan
William J. Brennan, Jr.
William Joseph Brennan, Jr. was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1956 to 1990...
, argued nonetheless for Roberts' objective test of locating entrapment in the manner in which the government agents carried out their investigation. "(We fail) to give the doctrine of entrapment the solid foundation that the decisions of the lower courts and criticism of learned writers have clearly shown is needed," he said. Lower courts, he noted, had either ignored the Sorrells standard altogether and focused on narrow facts of the case, or failed to come up with a generalized rule, which was proof enough that it needed to be reassessed.
Congress had passed criminal laws, he asserted, not because it wanted to regulate the means by which the prohibited activities were curtailed but because it wanted to make the actions criminal. "The courts refuse to convict an entrapped defendant, not because his conduct falls outside the proscription of the statute, but because, even if his guilt be admitted, the methods employed on behalf of the Government to bring about conviction cannot be countenanced," he reminded his colleagues, foreshadowing the "outrageous government conduct" theory that Justice William Rehnquist
William Rehnquist
William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer, jurist, and political figure who served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and later as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States...
would inadvertently create almost two decades later in United States v. Russell
United States v. Russell
United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 , was the first time the United States Supreme Court upheld a conviction where the defendant had argued entrapment...
. That, he said, was exactly what the Court had done in this case, expressing its revulsion at the manipulative actions of Kalchinian, which he described as "particularly reprehensible", and the FBN's cavalier attitude toward his freelancing.
In addition, he made two other objections: that defendants might choose to forgo the defense despite the facts of the case out of fear that an inquiry into their predisposition to offend would allow the prosecution to bring up prior bad acts that might not otherwise be relevant, and that jury verdicts of entrapment were not as reliable in deriving precedent
Precedent
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a legal case that a court or other judicial body may apply when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts...
for future cases.
Subsequent jurisprudence
- United States v. RussellUnited States v. RussellUnited States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 , was the first time the United States Supreme Court upheld a conviction where the defendant had argued entrapment...
, . Government agent supplying key ingredient for manufacture of controlled substance did not constitute entrapment. - Hampton v. United StatesHampton v. United StatesHampton v. United States, , is a United States Supreme Court decision on the subject of entrapment. By a 5-3 margin, the Court upheld the conviction of a Missouri man for selling heroin even though all the drug sold was supplied to him, he claimed, by a Drug Enforcement Agency informant who had in...
, . Defendant's belief that he and government informant were selling a legal counterfeit drug and misrepresenting it as heroin did not overcome government showing that he was predisposed to sell heroin in any event. - Jacobson v. United StatesJacobson v. United StatesJacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 , is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the criminal procedure topic of entrapment...
, . Previously legal actions do not of themselves prove predisposition to violate later law prohibiting them; predisposition inquiry to be limited to defendant's history prior to contact with government agents.
External links
- Full text of opinion at findlaw.com