Posted on 08/19/2022 11:57:35 PM PDT by Libloather
At the request of the defense, the judge on Friday instructed the jury in the Gov. Gretchen Whitmer kidnap trial about what entrapment means - though his instructions on what it doesn't mean may help the prosecution.
At issue: Did the defendants show any reluctance, the judge noted, or were they already willing participants?
"The crucial question in entrapment cases is whether the government persuaded a defendant who was not already willing to commit the crime to go ahead and commit it," U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker told jurors, who are set to begin deliberations next week in the retrial of Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr. on charges they plotted to kidnap Whitmer out of anger over her handling of the pandemic.
Sometimes an agent must 'pretend to be a criminal'
Fox and Croft have long argued that they were set up by rogue undercover FBI agents and informants who they allege hatched the kidnapping plan and ran the whole show. The prosecution says the defendants were armed, eager and willing to kidnap the governor, never showed reluctance and discussed snatching a governor long before the FBI got involved.
In court Friday, Jonker explained to the jurors the following elements about entrapment:
- It's not entrapment if someone is already willing to commit the crime.
- Even if the government provides someone with a favorable opportunity to commit the crime, it's not entrapment if that person is already willing to commit the crime.
- If an FBI agent persuades someone to commit a crime, it's not entrapment if that person is already willing.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
It is my understanding that from the very beginning of this trial the judge has shown preference to the prosecution. His bias has been so obvious that there is already talk of appeals.
I’m sorry, but no. The American criminal justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty. The FBI can’t ask a jury to convict someone of a crime if the FBI committed a crime in order to arrive at the charged criminal act.
The DOJ must approach the court with “clean hands” before the court should even entertain the charges.
That’s right... The agent was willing to play along so he is as guilty!!
Authors (Gibbons, Gerrard, Blanton, & Russell, 1998;Lee et al., 2016) disagree with Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) and argue that intention and willingness are separate and covarying constructs. Both constructs might also contribute to explaining variance of the behaviour (Pomery et al., 2009). When ‘willingness’defined as behaving in a specific way in a given situation is added to the theory of planned behaviour framework, researchers typically use it as a second dependent variable in addition to intention (Lee et al., 2016). ...
Convincing a person to be willing is entrapment.
Desire is not willingness or many husbands would be guilty of cheating. (They are according to Jesus)
“Cheap talk” has always been able to be “conspiracy” if the cops hear it. Know your audience.
“If an FBI agent persuades someone to commit a crime, it’s not entrapment if that person is already willing.”
If you have to be persuaded, doesn’t that mean you weren’t already willing?
“Reluctance” is the new measure for entrapment?
I wonder who wrote that new definition. Perhaps a certain ‘law professor’???
Has anyone found web evidence of the left changing literal definitions of entrapment?
Such a change undermines all 1/6 defendants’ defense, coincidentally.
Personally, with everything going on right now with the DOJ and the FBI, I think they are fools for trying this case, particularly given the timing.
Their optics are horrible all over the place.
IMO, if the government in ANY WAY facilitates the plans, attempt or execution of an illegal criminal act they are equally complicit in the crime; whatever the final charges may be, if I’m on that jury, they (defendants) WALK, period.
It’s a point on which the case could turn. Something the prosecution & defense will do battle over.
Lawyers have a language. Words that are synonymous to the general public have somewhat different meanings in the law. I suspect that may be the case here, but I don’t know.
That alone shows they weren't serious.
I'd believe a street sweeper or a skateboard before I'd believe a PT Cruiser.
Believe me the word entrapment in a criminal trial is nothing like its meaning to the average person.
However, there is a concept which doesn’t properly exist in the law,but does exist in reality.
“Jury nullification” is when the jurors ignore the law and do what they want.
If you were willing why would you need to be persuaded? That is double talk if I ever heard any.
I think that if there is to be a trial of DJT that it will take place before a DC-jury where the chances of a fair trial are, shall we say, vanishingly small.
The real point is that nothing would have happened without the feds doing their damndest to bring it all to fruition. They planned it, supplied everything, and pushed the entire thing along, even when folks weren't interested. From what I've heard of the case, if I were on the jury I'd acquit the defendants, and convict the FBI.
Exactly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.