Question

Chris told Pat that a bribe to a certain corrupt county official would buy a contract with the county hospitals. Pat contacted a friend, Morgan who owns a prescription benefits management business, and asked Morgan to pay a "finder’s fee" to Chris. Morgan did not pay although frequent emails and calls were made by Chris over a 4-month period. The emails and calls included deadlines and ultimatums which Morgan ignored. Finally, Morgan wrote Chris a check drawn on Morgan’s business account for $5,000 and wrote that it was to help Pat. Chris was actually an FBI agent and the contract and county official were not real; it was a ‘sting’ operation. Morgan was charged with conspiracy to commit bribery. At trial, the prosecutor acknowledged that Morgan was not predisposed to commit the crime. What defense can Morgan use and what is the likely outcome?

Answer 1

Morgan can use the entrapment defense, arguing that he was induced by law enforcement to commit a crime he was not predisposed to commit. given the prosecutor's acknowledgement of Morgan's lack of predisposition and the nature of the FBI's sting operation, the likely outcome could be an acquittal or dismissal of charges.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the described scenario, Morgan can utilize an entrapment defense. Entrapment occurs when a law enforcement officer induces a person to commit a crime that they otherwise would not have been predisposed to commit. The key element here is that the prosecutor acknowledged Morgan was not predisposed to commit the crime of bribery. Since Chris, an FBI agent, instigated the contact and provided a contrived opportunity for the crime, and Morgan resisted numerous ultimatums and deadlines before finally issuing a check Morgan may argue that he was improperly induced by law enforcement. The courts will consider whether the original intent to commit the crime was planted by the government versus Morgan himself.

Considering the lack of predisposition to take part in the criminal activity, Morgan's defense is substantively supported. If the defense can convincingly argue that Morgan only acted because of the government's persuasion and would not have done so on his own, the likely outcome may be acquittal or dismissal of charges. however, this will depend on the quality of the defense and the jury's perception of the facts presented.