◆ SpookStack

particular defendant. Violation of a third party's right does not-warrant court: interventien-en—due—process—grounds. The Second Circuit in US v. DeSapio, 435 Fad 272 (CA2 1970), cert. denied, 402 US 999 (1971), reached a similar conclusion when it commented: __ The difficulty courts have had in explica- ting and marking the boundaries of the defense of entrapment, * * * suggests the inadvisability of attempting to develop a penumbral doctrine that would add to the many collateral issues now pervading criminal trials still another, a judicial determination whether the activities of an informer had passed — some ill-defined acceptable bounds. Where, as here, there is no claim that the informer's activity infringed any specific of the Bill of Rights or any statute of the United States relating to the conduct of investigations, and thé competing considerations are such that we are unable to conclude that it violates the "decencies of civilized conduct", * * * such decisions had - best be left to the executive branch, which is accountable for its conduct to congress. ; 435 F2d at 281 (citations omitted). In US v. Szycher; 585 F2d 443 (CA 10 1978), the ‘Tenth Circuit also recognized a possible due process defense based upon outrageous conduct by law enforcement people.” _The informant there had used and distributed cocaine to _others, had fraudulently solicited credit, had converted and stolen property, had failed to pay his just debts, had a past criminal record, and had been paid $300 a head by the government agents for each person he could bring iad