Legal Definitions - Sherman–Sorrells doctrine

The Sherman–Sorrells doctrine is a legal principle that allows a defendant to claim they were "entrapped" by law enforcement. This defense asserts that the defendant was not genuinely inclined or predisposed to commit a crime until a government agent, such as an undercover police officer, persuaded or induced them to do so. Essentially, it focuses on the defendant's state of mind before contact with law enforcement, arguing that they lacked the criminal intent and only committed the offense because of the government's persistent encouragement or pressure.

Here are some examples illustrating the Sherman–Sorrells doctrine:

• Example 1: Drug Transaction

  Imagine a person who has never been involved in drug dealing but is struggling financially after losing their job. An undercover police officer, posing as a drug buyer, repeatedly approaches this individual, offering a significant sum of money to facilitate a small drug sale. The individual initially refuses several times, expressing discomfort and a desire to stay out of trouble. However, after weeks of persistent offers and appeals to their financial desperation by the officer, the individual finally agrees to make the transaction.

  How it illustrates the doctrine: In this scenario, the defendant could argue entrapment under the Sherman–Sorrells doctrine. Their initial refusals and lack of prior criminal history suggest they were not predisposed to engage in drug dealing. The officer's persistent inducement and exploitation of their financial vulnerability would be central to the defense, claiming the crime originated with the government agent, not the defendant's own criminal intent.

• Example 2: Property Theft

  Consider an individual with no criminal record who is known for being honest and law-abiding. An undercover detective befriends this person and, over several weeks, repeatedly suggests they break into a vacant electronics warehouse to steal valuable goods. The detective emphasizes how easy it would be, how much money they could make, and even provides detailed plans and tools, despite the individual's initial reluctance and moral objections. Eventually, worn down by the constant pressure and promises of easy money, the individual participates in the theft.

  How it illustrates the doctrine: Here, the defendant's clean record and initial resistance indicate a lack of predisposition to commit theft. The detective's continuous persuasion, detailed planning, and instigation are key elements that would support an entrapment defense under the Sherman–Sorrells doctrine, arguing that the criminal act was induced by the government agent.

• Example 3: Financial Fraud Scheme

  An individual working in a legitimate financial role, with no history of fraudulent activity, is approached by an undercover FBI agent posing as a corrupt business partner. The agent proposes a complex scheme to defraud investors, providing all the necessary fake documents, explaining the intricate steps, and offering a large share of the profits. The individual expresses discomfort and hesitation multiple times, questioning the legality and ethics of the plan. However, the agent relentlessly pressures them, assuring them it's foolproof and risk-free, until the individual reluctantly agrees to participate.

  How it illustrates the doctrine: This example demonstrates the Sherman–Sorrells doctrine because the government agent initiated the entire fraudulent idea, provided the means, and relentlessly pressured an unwilling participant. The individual's initial discomfort, ethical concerns, and lack of prior fraudulent activity would be used to argue they were not predisposed to commit fraud and were only induced to do so by the agent's persistent encouragement and detailed orchestration of the crime.