|
|
Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976)
Hampton v. United States No. 74-5822 Argued December 1, 1975 Decided April 27, 1976 425 U.S. 484
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
As a result of selling to Government agents heroin supplied by a Government informant, petitioner was convicted of a federal offense. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioner’s argument that, if the jury believed that the drug was supplied to him by the Government informant he should have been acquitted under the defense of entrapment regardless of his predisposition to commit the crime. Petitioner contends that, although such predisposition renders unavailable an entrapment defense, the Government’s outrageous conduct in supplying him with the contraband denied him due process.
Held: The judgment is affirmed. Pp. 488-491; 491-495.
507 F.2d 832, affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concluded that, where, as here, the Government agents, the Government informant, and the defendant acted in concert with one another, and the defendant conceded a predisposition to commit the crime in question, not only is the defense of entrapment unavailable but also a violation of due process rights cannot properly be claimed. United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423. Pp. 488-491.
MR. JUSTICE POWELL joined by MR JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concluded that Russell, supra, defeats the particular contention here but does not foreclose reliance on due process principles or on this Court’s supervisory power to bar conviction of a defendant because of outrageous police conduct in every case, regardless of the circumstances, where the Government is able to prove predisposition. Pp. 491-495.
REHNQUIST, J., announced the Court’s judgment and delivered an opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, J., joined. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BLACKMUN, J., joined, post, p. 491. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEWART and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 495. STEVENS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976) in 425 U.S. 484 425 U.S. 485. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=EI78HNCHTQJB35N.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976), in 425 U.S. 484, page 425 U.S. 485. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=EI78HNCHTQJB35N.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976). cited in 1976, 425 U.S. 484, pp.425 U.S. 485. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=EI78HNCHTQJB35N.
|