AJ52

I'm confused as to how the "entrapment" theory comes into play here.

Did the UC put undo pressure on the perps to commit illegal act(s) where there was no prior evidence or suspision against the perps. Did the UC just pick these guys out the clear blue. From what I read here - I bet not.

Don't know about Maine,but the UC wildlife agents around here got there ducks in a row - they dot the I's and cross the T's.I'm sure they are all aware of the do's and don'ts with respect to entrapment.

They did a huge sting down here on the Maryland E.Shore 15+ yrs ago.As I recall the wildlife agent(s) was uncover in excess of a year. When he/they got thru alot of men went to jail - A big time UC bust with convictions that made all the papers.

Unless your the Pope with no prior record or inclination to commit a crime against wildlife then maybe its entrapment,otherwise you probably goin to jail with no pass.

BTW - down here they frequently set up mechanical deer in fields day or night.Many a hunter been busted shottin these deer.I heard about entrapment decades ago when they started these stings.All the guys I've heard of or read about never got out of it by the old "entrapment" defense.

Sounds to me like these boys up in Maine are in a heap of Dog-Doo.
Uness the UC wildlife agent was just plain stupid they might be goin to jail.

Scrapdawg

I see no entrapment. I see people whom break the law, enjoy breaking the law and when faced with the opportunity to break the law, they took advantage of it. To say the warden befriended them sounds like your saying they knew he was a warden. Did they? These people are the reason why we honest folk must pay higher prices for tags, stamps etc. and why may land owners shut their land down to hunting. If you do the crime be a man and face the time. They knew they were wrong in the first place.

Steve F.in MD

I would like to see some of those undercover ops being run around here. I'm tired of finding deer with just their heads missing and hearing guys alluding to how many bucks they killed BEFORE the season even started!

Sylvan

Please note that never did I say it WAS entrapment, that discussion was already in progress. I merely pointed out that IF "the court decides" that it is then the charges get dropped. That's the law too! It seems that some of you have no tolerance whatsoeverif John Smith violates a law, you want to throw the book at him, but if a game warden does you're ready to turn a blind eye. I'm not. I think laws must be followed no matter who you are or be ready to accept the consequences. How can anybody be honest with themselves and disagree with that?

Sylvan

Here's a legal explination of entrpment...

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

Sylvan

So the mechanical deer thing is clearly not entrapment. The government agents are not trying to pursuade anybody to break the law, they are merely providing an opportunity.You might not consider itto beethical but certainly it's not illegal. Besides its actually not illegal to shoot a mechanical deer. The guys who do shoot it are usually arrested for something else like shooting from a vechicle or too close to a road.

In vt original post he said that "the guys let him(game warden)talk them into doing some illegal things". From the above definition, if that is true and the agent "pursuaded" them to commit a specific crime then most definately there is a case for entrapment. BUt of course it is for the court to hear the evidence and decide.

Also remember in the case of entrapment, it is the governments responsibilty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it didn't occur. The defendent does not have to prove that it did.

vtbuckrulrss

Sylvan, here issome more information about the whole deal: the agent approached my friend, whom used to hold a guide's license( he let it expire), asking if he would help him to scout for moose, supposedly a friend had drawn a permit. the agent was willing to pay for his services( illegal to accept payment unless you have a guides license). payment was declined. asked if he could go bear hunting with friend, for which he was willing to pay, again payment declined, but was given a site to watch.upon seeing some old bear snares( legal for friend, hadn't bought the permit yet), asked if he would trap a bear for him, again offering payment. friend refused to trap for him. wanted to shoot a wood duck, said he didn't have any in PA. duck season didn't start for three days. in steps number two guy to be bagged. at some point int the fall, he allegedly shoots the duck in the agent's presence. over the course of the fall, the agent repeatedly comes to friends home, gaining trust. deer season comes along. warden asks for some help bringing home a deer to PA(wake up call boys, it's a lot easier to get one in Pa than in Maine.). they shot four deer total. without his prodding, they had no inclination to jack a deer, however, upon seeing a deer in a good spot, the warden not only would suggest they take the deer, but also fired at the animal.number two bagged man took him to a spot where seals had been shot, where again the warden shot and missed. the warden did connect with a rabbit out of the truck window, breaking a few laws in the process( firing from a vehicle, loaded weapon in vehicle, shooting from a road). i watched him buy and help consume a 30 pack of beer, then drive to his hotel( 3 of us were having beer that day while skinning my bear). the hotel was 15 minutes from the house. now, now of what i stated above is biased one side or the other, i am sure the agents report follows pretty close to what i stated. so if the people that i know had no inclination towards taking wildlife illegally in the first place, yet were foolish enough at each opportunity to go along with the wardens suggestion, which he always did first, in this case i would say that this sounds like a case of entrapment at least in some, but not all, of the charges. hopes this might clear some points up.

hillbillyhunter1

vt,
there may or may not be a case for entrapment (probably not, if I had to guess), but that can in no way be objectively decided here without all the facts (and probably not even then) and with only the statement of a person (yourself) who is probably sympathetic with the alleged perpetrators. Your friends sound like criminals at worstor just plain stupid at best, no offense to you, in regards to this circumstance.

If they think they were duped they need to express that feelingto their attorney or the court.

Sorry, but you admittedly said that they broke several laws and thatright there gives them little credibility.

Sylvan

I don't think there is any question whether or not there is a "case" for entrapment. Just the fact that the warden had prior knowledge of the crime about to be committed and was present when it was committed is enough for a "case" for entrapment or in other words an "entrapment defense". The only hurdle for the accused is to convince a judge that it is "reasonable" to believe that entrapment "could have" taken place. They don't have to prove it did. If the judge thinks its reasonable to believe that it "cold have" taken place then its the responsibility of the government to prove that it didn't in court. Once you get to that point the question becomes, is the warden"guilty" of entrapment and in that I agree with you that it can't be decided here but must be decided in court where all the facts can be brought out. Of course if the court decides the warden is guilty then all the charges that resulted from the entrapment get dropped. That's just how it works!

Remember too, if there is reasonable doubt in the jury as to whether or not the warden made the arrest "entrapment free" if you will, then the accused go free. It's a subtle but important reverse of the way we normally think about court cases. In a manner of speaking, if the judge decides there is a case for entrapment then the warden is for all intent and purpose considered guilty unless it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did everything right in making the arrest.

mlo3135127

This is my point.