5 Vermont opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Vermont courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Wilkinsgreen2 sentences1990Such a test would contravene this Court’s intent in Wilkins . “[T]he purpose of the entrapment defense is to deter improper governmental activity in the enforcement of the criminal laws.” Id. 1990The objective test adopted by this Court in Wilkins avoids this anomaly and serves the underlying purpose of the entrapment defense by focusing “‘on the conduct of the government agents, and not on the predisposition of the defendant.’” Id. at 28 , 473 A.2d at 298 (quoting Justice Stewart’s dissent in United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 442 (1973)). | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Wrightgreen1 sentence2021Id. at 523 (Cavanaugh, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Armando C. Santosgreen1 sentence1993Affirmed. * The court reconsidered its ruling the following day, and cited United States v. Santos, 372 F.2d 177, 180 (2d Cir. 1967) (construing federal law before adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence), for the proposition that in a criminal prosecution, statements by an agent of the government at the investigative level are not admissible against the government. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Russellgreen1 sentence1990The objective test adopted by this Court in Wilkins avoids this anomaly and serves the underlying purpose of the entrapment defense by focusing “‘on the conduct of the government agents, and not on the predisposition of the defendant.’” Id. at 28 , 473 A.2d at 298 (quoting Justice Stewart’s dissent in United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 442 (1973)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. William Dale Yatergreen1 sentence1988See United States v. Yater, 756 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 901 (1985) (defendant who chose not to withdraw guilty plea waived his right to assert an entrapment defense on appeal); Lindner v. Wyrick, 644 F.2d 724 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 872 (1981) (trial court asked defendant whether he understood that the court was not obligated to follow the State’s recommendation). | 1 | 1 |
City of Alcoa v. Myersgreen1 sentence1988See United States v. Yater, 756 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 901 (1985) (defendant who chose not to withdraw guilty plea waived his right to assert an entrapment defense on appeal); Lindner v. Wyrick, 644 F.2d 724 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 872 (1981) (trial court asked defendant whether he understood that the court was not obligated to follow the State’s recommendation). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sherman v. United States
green
1 sentence2021Others have argued that juries are well-suited to evaluate whether conduct is likely to induce people who are not otherwise “ready to commit” crimes to do so, and that “the entrapment defense frequently involves factual conflicts and issues of credibility that are best suited to jury determination.” Id. (citing Model Penal Code § 2.10(2) cmt. 5 at 22 (Tent. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Weaver v. State
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 1191 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
George Frank Lindner v. Donald W. Wyrick, Warden
green
1 sentence1988See United States v. Yater, 756 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 901 (1985) (defendant who chose not to withdraw guilty plea waived his right to assert an entrapment defense on appeal); Lindner v. Wyrick, 644 F.2d 724 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 872 (1981) (trial court asked defendant whether he understood that the court was not obligated to follow the State’s recommendation). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Morales v. New York
green
1 sentence1988See United States v. Yater, 756 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 901 (1985) (defendant who chose not to withdraw guilty plea waived his right to assert an entrapment defense on appeal); Lindner v. Wyrick, 644 F.2d 724 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 872 (1981) (trial court asked defendant whether he understood that the court was not obligated to follow the State’s recommendation). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.