◆ SpookStack

Sf . actions they would not have had the opportunity to do so -- at least with this sheik.. The central defect in defendants’ argument is that it simply does not represent the law as established by the United States Supreme Court. As noted in the "general discussion", section V, supra, eloquent dissents have urged that objective entrapment. be adopted as a constitutional principle so that whenever a government agent provided the impetus for a crime, prosecution would be barred. If that were the law, clearly these convictions would have- y to be dismissed; indeed, if that were the law, these prosecu- tions would never have been brought. However, and as already noted, whenever the dissenting or concurring justices on . the Supreme Court have urged objective entrapment as a principle of constitutional law or as a basis for invoking the supervisory power, see Hampton, 425 US 486; Sorrells, 287 US 435; Russell, 411 US 423; and Sherman, 356 US 369, the majority has rejected the concept. Thus, except for ° the possible availability of ar Noutrageous governmental. conduct" argument, discussed below, defendants' entrapment claims in these cases are restricted to principles of sub- jective entrapment, where the creative activity of -the government entraps into criminal conduct a defendant who was not predisposed to commit the crime. As already noted, i a +