◆ SpookStack

Murphy further argues that his prosecution was the product of governmental overreaching in the creation and promotion of crime ‘and that the government's outrageous creative | | activity was designed to lure Murphy into criminality without any indication of his predisposition or prior agreement = to engage’ in wrongdoing. He further argues that as ta him the government deliberately or reckessly created ambigu-* ous and misleading evidence of criminality. Murphy's final argument focuses upon claimed misconduct by the government in the Abscam investigation and prosecution, and argues that the misconduct caused him specific prejudice. He contends that dismissal of the indictment would not harm any legitimate. law enforcement purpose, but on the contrary. would serve as a deterrent against any future Abscam-type abuses. D. Lederer's Claims. Defendant Lederer claims he was deprived of due process and that he was the victim of entrapment’ as a matter ° of law because Abscam constitutes outrageous conduct on the part of government agents in that they created rather than discovered crime; allowed Weinberg and Amoroso to act in an uncontrolled fashion; manufactured jurisdiction over defendants; selected a venue that would avoid the Third Circuit's decision in US vy. Twigg, 588 E2d 373 (CA3 1978); provided improper incentives for Weinberg; appealed