Defenses of Entrapment in common law

Abstract

In majority of the American jurisdictions the approaches applied in the field of entrapment defense are either a subjective or an objective one. The differences between these two approaches have been tested by the student jurors who after viewing a recorded video of a cocaine trial were given subjective test instructions or the objective ones. There was also a change in the acceptance of prior conviction. The student jurors weighted up, made a decision, and then filled in a questionnaire which estimated their comprehension about the fact of the instructions and trial. First of all the results of this study demonstrated that the juror students have a very poor understanding about the main characteristics of the objective test. In order to simplify the instructions, it is highly recommended that the objective test be clearly described through an attempt made in this field. Arguably, where the objective test is applied it is the judge and not the jury who should make decision about the entrapment defense. Second, adaption of a prior conviction can influence effectively the decision made in the subjective test circumstances; however in the objective test circumstances, such an effect does not exist. According to this conclusion the jurors are effectively encouraged by the instructions of the subjective test to seek the evidence of guilt in the prior conviction. The words which form the instruction of the objective test could also be considered as a reason of the different effects. In the circumstances of the objective test, the juror students were directed not to consider the appellant's predisposition and just a few numbers of the jurors comprehended this standpoint of the instruction.