2 of my friends were arrested for solicitation while they were walking home. Friend A was arrested a year ago, and friend B 6 weeks ago. They were both sent to VN court. Friend A did not have a way to prove his innocence because the officers did not record the sting operation. In the other hand, friend B found out that the court had a recording of the whole conversation. After going through the whole pre-trial stage, the city attorney lowered the charges to trespassing. Their PDs advised them to take the deal, so they did.
For friend A, it was his word against a female officer. For friend B, the court had an audio-recording stating that the officer offered him to take him in her car to a nearby motel so he agreed.
Did they make the right decision? What was their chance of being acquitted?
Well, since the cases are over, it's all academic at this point, but...
Does entrapment still exist. It's an affirmative defense, meaning the defendant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that they were entrapped.
Entrapment is when law enforcement officer (or their agent) engages in conduct that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime. The examples from the jury instruction on entrapment include "badgering, persuasion by flattery or coaxing, repeated and insistent requests or an appeal to friendship or sympathy.
The other example is conduct by the officer that would make commission of the crime unusually attractive to a normally law-abiding person. That can be things like a guarantee that the conduct is not illegal or that it would go undetected, an offer of extraordinary benefit or other similar conduct.
However, if an officer simply gives the defendant an opportunity to commit the crime or merely tried to gain the defendant's confidence through reasonable and restrained steps, that is not entrapment.
The jury is to focus on the officer's conduct primarily, but they must look at all the circumstances as well. They should look at the defendant's actions before, during and after the acts, the defendant's responses to the officers urging along with the seriousness of the offense.
Keep in mind - entrapment is conduct by officers that would convince a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense. If there is evidence of particular intentions by the defendant, a prior predisposition to commit the offense, etc - that can be considered.
That's the law on entrapment.
Nobody can guess as to their chances if they went forward. It's possible that the conduct with friend B could be introduced by friend A to show the officer's pattern of entrapment or improper investigation. We'll never know now though, since they've plead guilty. Is a trespassing conviction better than a prostitution conviction? Sure sounds better on paper.
Yes it exists.. I think juries really do not care about these sting ops and many people think it is a waste of resources but I would also think it would be wise to accept a "trespassing" over the stress and uncertainty of a trial of this nature.
There's no way to tell how things would have turned out with so few facts. Entrapment is alive as a defense but more facts would have to be posted and since the cases are closed it doesn't really matter. Practically speaking, cops testimony outweighs a civilian, barring other facts.
Entrapment still exist in California, but defendant bears the burden of proof. There is not enough facts here to evaluate this defense and it is unfair to second guess their counsel based on the limited facts provided. If entrapment did exist in their cases, I am pretty sure the PD would have file motion or taken the matter to trial.
The dye has been cast. They took the trespass deal, which isn't bad. You can't ever guess what a jury will do. A lot of it depends on the attorney's preparation of a defense strategy, the facts and evidence of the case. Sometimes you just have to roll with it. In this case, they chose not to go to jury trial so that was their decision to make. Hopefully they got a 12 month or 24 month probationary period and they can apply for an expungement or early termination. They can always speak to the P.D.
Your questions is very difficult to answer without more detail and a thorough review of the arrest report. Clearly, having a favorable audio recording is beneficial to the defense when the evidence suggests that the facts do not give rise to legal culpability for solicitation. However, there is a jury instruction in the CALCRIM jury instructions used in criminal trials that makes statements used against the Defendant that are not written or otherwise recorded to be viewed with "caution". More details are needed to determine whether one should go to trial or settle.
