US v. Russell
- D was convicted of manufacturing and possessing methamphetamine and the sale and delivery of that drug.
- D argued entrapment because an undercover agent had supplied D with an important ingredient for the manufacturing of the drug in exchange for ½ of what was manufactured. He conceded that the evidence showed he had a predisposition to commit the crime; however the governments conduct was so outrages that it should be prohibited from prosecuting.
- SC held that defendant's defense of entrapment was defeated by his concession that the jury's finding that he was predisposed to committing the crime was supported by the evidence.
- However, court also found that there may be instances that the government’s actions would be so outrages that it would bar prosecution of the defendant. Not in this case.