Entrapment Defense Legal Explanation

Summary

The defense of entrapment is considered an excuse, arguing that the defendant was induced by law enforcement to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed. In Maryland, the statute of limitations for robbery may be tolled if the defendant is not present in the state, potentially affecting the dismissal of a case. Mistake of fact could be a plausible defense if a defendant genuinely believed they were not in possession of illegal substances. The Castle Doctrine may not justify the use of deadly force unless there is an imminent threat. In Pennsylvania v. Stonehouse, the tactic of putting sugar in a gas tank was not used.

Full Conversation

Jack is arrested after he robs his local bank in Annapolis, Maryland. Fortunately for Jack, he is able to escape from custody and live as an upstanding citizen in Palmer, Alaska, for the next 27 years. During his 28th year on the run, Jack returns to Annapolis to visit his dying mother. Against all odds, a police officer who worked the bank robbery case recognizes Jack and arrests him. The State of Maryland charges Jack with robbery. Jack's defense is the statute of limitations for robbery is 25 years. Assuming that Jack is right, and the statute of limitations is 25 years, will the judge agree to dismiss his case? Group of answer choices It depends on whether the crime occurred before or after Alaska became a state No Yes
In Maryland, the statute of limitations for robbery could potentially be tolled (paused) if the defendant is not present in the state. Since Jack was living in Alaska, the statute may not have run continuously. Thus, the judge may not dismiss the case solely based on the time elapsed.
Would you like more information on how statutes of limitations work?
Question * pts Jack is arrested in the airport with two pounds of cocaine in his suitcase. Which of the following defenses could be successful, at least in theory, against his numerous federal charges? Group of answer choices Mens Judicata Reus: Applied retroactively through the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution Mistake of Law: Jack reasonably believed Congress had legalized cocaine after legalization was proposed in a House bill Mistake of Fact: Jack thought the cocaine was flour
Let's take a closer look at the potential defenses for Jack:
*. Mens Judicata Reus: This is not a valid defense for drug possession. It seems like a play on legal terms rather than an established defense.
*. Mistake of Law: Generally, mistake of law is not a successful defense, especially for federal drug charges. Ignorance or misunderstanding of the law is not typically excusable.
*. Mistake of Fact: This could be a theoretically plausible defense if Jack genuinely believed the cocaine was flour. However, proving this mistake would require convincing evidence showing Jack's genuine belief and lack of intent to possess cocaine.
If you need further clarification on any of these defenses, feel free to ask!
Mr. Culdugger is awoken in the middle of the night by a loud bang in his garage. He retrieves his lawfully-registered Glock * handgun from his bedside gun safe and goes to the garage, where he sees someone stealing beer from the refrigerator. Mr. Culdugger is confident that the intruder cannot see him, so he takes slow, careful aim before shooting the intruder in the head. Mr. Culdugger is charged with various homicide-related crimes. In his jurisdiction, a garage is considered part of a house, so he cites the Castle Doctrine in his defense. Is Mr. Culdugger's defense likely to succeed? Group of answer choices No. Mr. Culdugger was not repelling an attack, and his use of force was not reasonable under the circumstances. Yes. The Castle Doctrine states that a man's house is his castle. It depends on what the intruder was wearing.
Case Rating: *
In Maryland and many other jurisdictions, the Castle Doctrine may not justify Mr. Culdugger's actions because the use of deadly force must be reasonable and typically in response to an imminent threat. Since the intruder was not posing an immediate threat, his defense might not succeed.
Would you like to be connected to local lawyers who can better assist you with your case?
Question * pts Read the case of Pennsylvania v. Stonehouse in your textbook. Which of the following intimidation tactics did William Welsh not employ against Carol Stonehouse? Group of answer choices Putting her clothes in the bathtub with beet juice Putting sugar in her gas tank Smearing potting soil on the walls Threatening to kill her dog
Case Rating: *
In the case of Pennsylvania v. Stonehouse, William Welsh did not employ the tactic of "Putting sugar in her gas tank" against Carol Stonehouse. If you need further legal information or guidance, feel free to ask!