What is entrapment?

The two tests

Subjective test — used in federal court and most states. The focus is the defendant's predisposition. If the jury finds they were ready and willing before the government showed up, the defence fails even if the pressure was heavy.

Objective test — used in a minority of states. The focus is police conduct: would the inducement have led a normally law-abiding person to commit the offence? Predisposition is irrelevant.

What counts as inducement

Persistent solicitation after refusals, appeals to sympathy or friendship, threats, or offers so extravagant that they overcome ordinary resistance. A single offer to buy drugs, or an undercover officer merely agreeing to a transaction the defendant proposed, is not inducement.

How it is raised

Entrapment is an affirmative defence. The defendant normally carries the initial burden of producing evidence of inducement; the prosecution then has to prove predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt. Raising it usually concedes that the act happened — which is why it is rarely combined with a denial that the defendant did anything at all.

The related doctrine

Outrageous government conduct is a separate due-process argument: conduct so shocking that prosecution offends fundamental fairness, regardless of predisposition. Courts accept it very rarely, but it survives as a distinct argument where police effectively manufactured the entire offence.