◆ SpookStack

| eed “™ US 369; Russell, 411 US 423; and Hampton, 425 US. 484. -majority of the current Supreme Court bench, at least in. Sorrells v. US, 287 US 435 (1932), the Supreme Court has divided sharply on the standards. to be applied in reviewing the conviction of a person whose criminal conduct was in part facilitated by government agents. In US v. Russell, 411 US 423 (1973), a Supreme Court najority of five claimed to adhere to Sorrells as a precedent of long standing that had already once been reexamined and implicitly reaffirmed in Sherman v. US, 356 US 369 (1958). Writing for the court in Russell, Justice Rehnquist pointed out that "since the “Eentrapment] defense is not of a constitutional dimension, —_— ‘Congress may address itself to the question: and adopt any substantive definition of the defense that it may find t desirable." 411 US at 433 (footnote omitted). t i Four Supreme Court decisions are central to the issue of entrapment. Sorrells,! 287 US 435; Sherman, 356 Familiarity with the majority, concurring, and dissent- ing opinions in those decisions is assumed.’ From those decisions as a whole it appears that the "objective" view of entrapment as espoused by Justice Brennan in Hampton has never been accepted by a majority of the Supreme Court. The "subjective'-view has been adopted in Sortells, Sherman and Russell and appears to be still acceptable.to a present 40