Sorrells v. United States
| Sorrells v. United States | |
|---|---|
| Argued November 8, 1932 Decided December 19, 1932 | |
| Full case name | Sorrells v. United States |
| Citations | 287 U.S. 435 (more) 53 S. Ct. 210, 77 L. Ed. 413, 1932 U.S. LEXIS 30 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted; conviction affirmed, 57 F.2d 973; certiorari granted, 287 U.S. 584 (1932). |
| Subsequent | Conviction reversed |
| Holding | |
| Entrapment is a valid defense; the prosecution must show the defendant had a predisposition to commit the crime if it is raised. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Hughes, joined by Van Devanter, Sutherland, Butler, Cardozo |
| Concurrence | Roberts, joined by Brandeis, Stone |
| Dissent | McReynolds (no opinion) |
| Laws applied | |
| statutory construction | |
Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), is a Supreme Court case in which the justices unanimously recognized the entrapment defense. However, while the majority opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes located the key to entrapment in the defendant's predisposition or lack thereof to commit the crime, Owen Roberts' concurring opinion proposed instead that it be rooted in an analysis of the conduct of the law enforcement agents making the arrest. Although the Court has stuck with predisposition, the dispute has hung over entrapment jurisprudence ever since.