DEFENSE · 21usc841:x-entrapment
Requires showing government inducement of the crime plus absence of predisposition on the part of the defendant to engage in the criminal conduct (Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (1988)).
Exact element source
it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally-Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title21.jsonl#title21_sec841; Unicode character offsets [83:146] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ebaba73bf6e21a591f44bf851f24a052a5687813c505030cd9483e17753e9420.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; provisional (1 case) | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:United States v. Vincent — 20 F.3d 229 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/procedural · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Vincent — 20 F.3d 229 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Affirmative defense of entrapment (government inducement + lack of predisposition) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(D) Raised for the first time on appeal (informant sent into the home to buy); court declined to consider it. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
In order to establish the knowing or intentional distribution of a controlled substance, the government needed only.to show that defendant knowingly or intentionally delivered a controlled substance.
United States v. Vincent — 20 F.3d 229 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
In order to establish the knowing or intentional distribution of a controlled substance, the government needed only.to show that defendant knowingly or intentionally delivered a controlled substance.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_20.jsonl#/f3d/20/0229-01; Unicode character offsets [5072:5271] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1b8c4fb6d1b27c83cc97582c53236d4fe132b40a4a1a11e5f6552d400bb8d267.Requires showing government inducement of the crime plus absence of predisposition on the part of the defendant to engage in the criminal conduct (Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (1988)).