Entrapment And Denial Of The Crime:a Defense Of The Inconsistency Rule
Although litigants in civil proceedings are permitted to argue inconsistent positions,' most federal courts have not allowed inconsistent defenses in criminal cases. Concern over this so-called "inconsistency rule" in criminal cases most frequently arises with respect to the entrapment defense. Currently, the federal courts of appeals are split on the question whether a criminal defendant who wants to plead entrapment may also assert other defenses. The Supreme Court has declined to resolve the issue. After a brief discussion of the development of the entrapment defense, this note outlines the four approaches that the federal courts of appeals have taken in addressing whether a criminal defendant may assert inconsistent defenses in an entrapment case. The note advocates adherence to the inconsistency rule, but suggests that courts adopt a more precise definition of "inconsistency" in this context. The proposed rule would prohibit a defendant from denying a crime and asserting entrapment. It would not, however, require a defendant to admit the crime...