Hello,
I, like many others, am deeply troubled by the
current legal troubles of Council Member Dean
Zimmerman. Knowing Dean, it is a bit difficult
to envision him as a money-grasping, power-broker...
willing to sacrifice his ideals for monetary gain.
Based on the description of the criminal offense
in question, I can't help but entertain the
possibility
that a complex violation of some sort has taken place;
however, who committed that violation is-as yet-
still to be established. "Beyond a reasonable doubt"
should remain the test. With that in mind, I couldn't
help but review the following legal definition and
reflect on the situation at hand:
"ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is
induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or
their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous
intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy
forbids conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is
ready and willing to break the law and the Government
agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable
opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For
example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent
to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either
directly or through an informer or other decoy, to
engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So,
a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the
person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime
charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was
afforded, and that Government officers or their agents
did no more than offer an opportunity.
On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable
doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the
crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part
of some Government officer or agent, then the person
is not guilty.
In slightly different words: Even though someone may
have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it
was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty.
Government agents entrapped him if three things
occurred:
- First, the idea for committing the crime came from
the government agents and not from the person accused
of the crime.
- Second, the government agents then persuaded or
talked the person into committing the crime. Simply
giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not
the same as persuading him to commit the crime.
- And third, the person was not ready and willing to
commit the crime before the government agents spoke
with him.
On the issue of entrapment the government must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not
entrapped by government agents."
Guy Gambill
(Uptown)
______________________________________________________
Yahoo! for Good
Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/shelter
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
