Final answer:
Mr. Smith could claim an entrapment defense, arguing that the police induced a crime he would not have otherwise committed. The success of this defense depends on his ability to prove undue persuasion by law enforcement.
Step-by-step explanation:
If Mr. Smith is claiming that an undercover police officer supplied him with a weapon and persuaded him to rob a bank, he could potentially claim an entrapment defense. This defense argues that Mr. Smith was induced by law enforcement to commit a crime that he otherwise would not have been predisposed to commit. For the entrapment defense to be successful, Mr. Smith would need to prove that the undercover officer's actions went beyond mere opportunity and actually persuaded or coerced him into committing the crime.
The entrapment defense would bring into question the conduct of law enforcement and whether it was appropriate. If proven, it could lead to the exclusion of certain evidence or even a not guilty verdict on the grounds that the government should not provoke law-abiding citizens into committing crimes. It’s important to recognize that the burden of proof for entrapment sometimes lies with the defendant, who has to prove that the persuasion was of such a degree that it would have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.