◆ SpookStack

to which common feelings respond, for the proper use of governmental power". US v. Russell, 411 US at 441, (Stewart, J., dissenting). However, and despite eloquent arguments .: in several dissenting and concurring opinions, Sorrells, : 287 US 435; Sherman, 356 US 369; Russell, 411 US 423; and Hampton, 425 US 486, the "objective" approach to entrap-_ ment has never been accepted by any majority of the Supreme Court. Some confusion has arisen because "objective entrapment, the view that over-involvement of the government ( in the commission of a crime requires dismissal of an indict- ment, has also been called "entrapment as a matter of law". Further semantic confusion has arisen, however, because . the term "entrapment as a matter of law" has also been: + applied to a situation where, on the evidence presented, no jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime that was * induced by: the government. agents. . Sherman v. US, 356 us 369; see US_v. Jannotti, 501.F Supp at 1200. Under that view, "entrapment as a matter of law't simply means that insufficient evidence was presented to warrant the case going to the jury on the issue of defendant's predisposed ". state of mind. Entrapment is a difficult, conceptually slippery, and philosophically controversial concept. Ever since ©