After Congress criminalized the receipt of child pornography through the mail, federal agents targeted Keith Jacobson, who had previously purchased legal nude magazines featuring minors before the law changed. Over a period of about 26 months, government agents and fictitious organizations repeatedly mailed him solicitations, questionnaires, and advocacy materials designed to test and stimulate his interest in illegal child pornography. Eventually, Jacobson ordered a magazine containing illegal images from a government-controlled operation, and he was prosecuted for knowingly receiving child pornography through the mail. At trial, he raised the entrapment defense, but he was convicted.
Whether the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jacobson was predisposed to commit the offense independent of the government's extensive undercover inducement, so that his entrapment defense failed.
When entrapment is raised, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the criminal act before the government induced him to do so. The government may use undercover methods to provide an opportunity to commit a crime, but it may not implant in an otherwise innocent person the disposition to commit the offense.
No. The government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jacobson was independently predisposed to violate the law before its repeated efforts induced him to order the illegal material.
The Court emphasized that the key question was Jacobson's predisposition prior to the government's intervention, not whether he eventually responded after prolonged pressure. His prior lawful purchases showed sexual interest but did not establish a readiness to commit the later-criminalized offense. The 26-month campaign of government mailings and fabricated political appeals did more than merely offer an opportunity; it actively cultivated his willingness to break the law. Because the record showed the offense was the product of the government's own inducement rather than preexisting criminal intent, the conviction could not stand.
Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White and Scalia, argued that the evidence permitted a finding of predisposition, including Jacobson's demonstrated interest in such materials and his eventual ready response, and that the Court improperly displaced the jury's role.
Jacobson is a leading modern entrapment case because it sharply reiterates that predisposition must exist before government inducement begins, and that extended undercover pressure cannot manufacture criminal intent. It builds on the subjective entrapment framework of Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958), and United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973), while limiting aggressive sting tactics where the government effectively creates the offense.
Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932) |
Verified |
Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958) |
Verified |
United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) |
Abstain |
Enter a case name or citation — get a structured brief where every case it cites is checked against real law.
Try Law Student Workbench →