Title: Masciale v. United States 356 U.S. 386 (1958)
Facts: Mr. Masciale was introduced to government agent Marshall by a government informer, Kowel. Mr. Masciale and Kowel had known each other for about four years and Mr. Masciale was unaware that Kowel’s was a part of some undercover activities. Therefore, Kowel introduced Marshall to Masciale as a big narcotics buyer. At the trial both Marshall and petitioner had testified concerning the ensuring conversation (supreme.justia.com. n.d.). Marshall stated in his testimony that he wanted to talk about buying a large quantity of high-grade narcotics and that if Masciale was not interested, then their conversation would be over.
Issues: The issues were that Masciale said that he…show more content…
Decision: In this case the court ruled that entrapment was not an issue because neither party attempted to subpoena Kowel in the case of entrapment. Furthermore, the issue of entrapment was never raised by the trial judge and they were never raised by the parties either. Therefore, the verdict of guilty was reached and that no harm was done by leaving the question to the jury because according to law, there was no entrapment.
Reasoning: The reason for this was because the trial court should have ruled on the issue of entrapment and not left it up to the jury. Furthermore, the judge that was hearing the case should have gave a different weight on the evidence in the case and not the evidence that was on record. Therefore, by doing this and letting the jury conclude then the claim of entrapment could not be sustained and the actual conviction would stand.
Dissenting opinions: For this case there were no dissenting opinions in the case because there was no evidence to entrapment. Therefore, the judges agreed that the verdict was fair and that the judge in the case had the right to enforce the ruling of entrapment. Furthermore, they felt that no harm was done in the question to the jury on entrapment.
Title: United States v. Russell 411 U.S. 423 (1973)
Facts: In this case the respondent and two other men with the assistants of an undercover agent,