◆ SpookStack

to this district judge in light of the clear federal prece- dents that reject objective entrapment. 2. "Outrageous" Government Conduct. Even if objective entrapment is not to be the Standard, defendants argue, these indictments should be dismissed because the government's handling of the investi- ~ . @ gation was "so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial proces- ses to obtain a conviction." This argument stems from ‘Russell, 411 US at 431-32, where Justice Rehnquist, speaking ee C for the majority, acknowledged that such a Situation of "outrageous" conduct "may some day be presented', - Justice Rehnquist repeated that thought in Hampton, 425. US at 489. v . ; It is important to recognize, however, that in neither Russell nor Hampton was the questioned governmental conduct held to be "outrageous". ‘Nor has any other decision of the Supreme Court. found. law. enforcement officers! conduct to be so "outrageous" as to require dismissal of-an indict- _ ment. Thus, even though the Supreme Court has yet to be | confronted with or to offer a description of circumstances sufficiently outrageous. to warrant dismissal, the governing principle remains that in some case, under some circumstances, the conduct of law enforcement officials may some day bar