My position is that the state was a manufacturer, rather than a detector, of my alleged crimes. The conviction resulted from the deliberate manufacture of a crime that never would have occurred in the absence of Christophe Jone's prodigious efforts to set me up. Jone's creation of the crime is attributable to the state and denied me the right of due process under the US Constitution Amendment XIV and Wisconsin Constitution Article I Section 8.
In addition such also constitutes entrapment, which is also prohibited. The defendant is protected by the defense of entrapment "if the result of the governmental activity is to implant in an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission." Hampton V United States, 425 US 484, 490,96 S.Ct 1646, 1650 (1976)(quoting Sorrells V. United States, 287 v.s. 435,442,53 SCT 210,212-13(1932).
A defense of "outrageous governmental conduct" or "governmental abuse of power" has never been applied by Wisconsin courts or by the United States Supreme Court. However, the Supreme in United States Vs Russell, 411 US , 423,93, S.CT., 1637 (1973), stated: "We may someday be presented with a situation in which the conduct of the law enforcement agents is so outrageous the due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction.." Id..at 431-32, 92 S.Ct. at1642-43. In Steadman, the Wisconsin Court acknowledged the existence of an outrageous governmental conduct defense and stated that in order for a defendant to properly assert it, he or she must assert that a specific constitutional right has been violated. Steadman, 448 NW 2d at 271 (citing Hampton, 425 US at 490, 96 S.Ct at 1650).
In addition, an outrageous governmental defense requires that the prosecution of a defendant must violate "fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice, " mandated by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. " Russell, 411 US at 432, 93 S.Ct at 1643. In other words, outrageous governmental conduct "may arise where government itself was so enmeshed in the criminal activity that prosecution of the defendant could be held repugnant to the American Justice System." Steadmen 448, NW 2nd at 271.
It is my position that the case for which I am now incarcerated for the last ten years is that unique case in which the government agent (informant) created a crime, recruited individuals, struck a deal with the state, then turned them in! Not only is such conduct outrageous, but it also constitutes entrapment.
The United States Supreme Court has held: "the Government could not disown informer and insist it was not responsible for his actions in order to avoid the defense of entrapment. "
An informant is considered a government agent for the purpose of entrapment. Thus he or she would be considered a law enforcement agent! In Sherman v United States, 78 S Ct. 9819i (1958). The Court stated:
" The function of law enforcement is prevention of crime and apprehension of criminals, and does not include the manufacturing of crime, as affecting validity of defense of entrapment."
To Help or for more information, contact
FFUP ( Forum for Understandsing Prisons) at email@example.com, or 29631 Wild Rose Drive, Blue River, WI 53518
Or write Edward L. Jackson SR 244447
Green Bay Correctional Institution
Back to FFUP index