Connection lost
Server error
HAMPTON v. UNITED STATES Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A defendant, predisposed to sell drugs, was convicted for selling heroin supplied to him by a government informant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a predisposed defendant cannot claim entrapment or a due process violation even when the government is the source of the contraband.
Legal Significance: This case severely limits the “outrageous government conduct” defense, establishing that a defendant’s predisposition to commit a crime forecloses an entrapment defense, even if the government supplies the contraband. The holding on this point, however, is a plurality opinion, not a majority.
HAMPTON v. UNITED STATES Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The petitioner, Hampton, was convicted on two counts of distributing heroin following two sales to undercover DEA agents. The sales were arranged by a government informant, Hutton. According to the government’s evidence, Hampton told Hutton he needed money and knew where to obtain heroin, which prompted Hutton to arrange the sales. Hampton’s version of events was that Hutton not only solicited the sales but also supplied the heroin, which Hampton claimed he believed was a counterfeit, non-narcotic substance. The jury’s guilty verdict implied a finding that Hampton knowingly sold heroin. On appeal, Hampton did not pursue a standard entrapment defense, conceding his predisposition to commit the crime. Instead, he argued that the government’s conduct in supplying the very contraband for which he was prosecuted was so outrageous that it violated his due process rights and should bar the conviction as a matter of law.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment bar the conviction of a predisposed defendant for selling contraband that was supplied to him by a government agent?
(Plurality Opinion) No. A defendant’s predisposition to commit a crime forecloses any Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment bar the conviction of a predisposed defendant for selling contraband that was supplied to him by a government agent?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the subjective, predisposition-focused test for entrapment and significantly curtails Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
Legal Rule
The defense of entrapment is not available to a defendant who was Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo c
Legal Analysis
The plurality opinion, authored by Justice Rehnquist, held that the case was Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do e
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A defendant predisposed to commit a crime cannot claim entrapment. *