Flynn Walks.. DOJ drops case

[Paul Wesley 3313]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In the final analysis, he was going to get 3 or 6 months in prison, not the death penalty, so we're not really missing much.

We're missing the guy who sneered and energetically lead the "Lock her up!" chant - later named to be Trump's National Security Advisor - going to fucking prison for lying to American intelligence services about conversations with Russians.  

[wildcat09 29559]

11 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

"Materiality" goes to the subject matter, not the extent of harm caused by the lie. 

That the defendant’s statement was “materially” false. Lying by itself is not illegal, including lying to a federal agent. A statement must be “materially” false to be illegal. A statement is material if it has a “natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing” the agent the statement is made to. In other words, a material statement is important and relevant to the subject matter being discussed. In criminal investigations, any fact that may be relevant to finding, charging, or convicting the suspect meets the element of materiality. It’s irrelevant whether the government believes the false statement. The law still applies even if the federal agent knows the statement is false.

Hey, I pretty much said it was a shitty argument. 

[TwiceHorn 31992]

10 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

We're missing the guy who sneered and energetically lead the "Lock her up!" chant - later named to be Trump's National Security Advisor - going to fucking prison for lying to American intelligence services about conversations with Russians.  

Kind of unique to me, but for the most part, I get no joy from sending people to prison.

The guy's reputation is trashed among all but hardcore Trumpkins, and even prison wouldn't have changed that.

[JBJ 3780]

45 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

I agree with twice. The investigation against Flynn (Crossfire Razor) was over when the interview took place and they  already knew about his calls (which did not compel a reopening of that case). Formally, someone didn't close it on the system and the FBI used that glitch to secure the interview (which pissed off Yates at the DOJ). The memo produced on why the FBI was proceeding stated one possible goal was to get him to lie so he could be prosecuted or fired (nothing to do with Crossfire Razor). In plain terms, the DOJ is indicating it was a perjury trap on a closed investigation and his lie was not material to any ongoing investigation. It doesn't exonerate him, but the DOJ is dropping in the interest of justice (an often used statement by prosecutors when dropping charges). 

Isn't this entrapment?

Edited May 7, 2020 by JBJ

[Hookah Horns 3089]

59 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Great answer.  Care to translate?  For fuck's sake, we've all been taught "it's a crime to lie to government officials".  So apparently it's not, under certain circumstances.  What are those circumstances, because everything you've said and everything you've quoted mean nada to this engineer.  Think of me as a moron, and explain accordingly.  I  *think* you're saying his lies weren't "material", so if that's true, why weren't they?

Imagine that you have enemies in the govt that want to send you to prison, but they can't find anything solid to pin on you. But say they are surveiling you and discover you did something embarrassing, but totally legal. Like cheating on your wife with another man. 

If they question you about it, and it has nothing to do with any criminal activity, it isn't a federal crime if you lie. 

[Loch Ness Monster 3533]

Republicans are now on the FBI was trying to help overthrow the government and Bill Barr is an American patriot train. 

[Bruh Man 3160]

 

[TwiceHorn 31992]

Just now, JBJ said:

This is entrapment, yes?

Related notion, but no.

The taco example above is about the best I can think of.  Consider a witness brought in for investigation of any crime (other than something related to taco consumption).  The witness is asked if he ate tacos for lunch and lies in response.  Because whether the witness had tacos for lunch is not material to any aspect of the investigation, and his answer doesn't mislead or otherwise impede the investigators, it would not be a violation of 18 USC 1001.

[Captainant 28398]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

Isn't this entrapment?

Entrapment would be forcing Flynn to lie, or tricking him into lying just to prosecute him. Flynn lied on his own accord and without compulsion, the FBI simply asked to speak with him. He could have (and should have) told the truth then. Catching someone in a perjury trap is just catching someone in their own lies.

[JBJ 3780]

11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Entrapment would be forcing Flynn to lie, or tricking him into lying just to prosecute him. Flynn lied on his own accord and without compulsion, the FBI simply asked to speak with him. He could have (and should have) told the truth then. Catching someone in a perjury trap is just catching someone in their own lies.

Ummmm...yeah.  That's what happened.

And I don't mean bringing him in for the purpose of seeing if he would lie. They intentionally left a closed investigation open for the purpose of creating a crime would one would be impossible to even willfully commit.

Edited May 7, 2020 by JBJ

[Foosters 18228]

12 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Imagine that you have enemies in the govt that want to send you to prison, but they can't find anything solid to pin on you. But say they are surveiling you and discover you did something embarrassing, but totally legal. Like cheating on your wife with another man. 

If they question you about it, and it has nothing to do with any criminal activity, it isn't a federal crime if you lie. 

Is this kinda like when Whitewater morphed into a blowjob investigation and they charged a sitting POTUS with perjury?

 

[TwiceHorn 31992]

Just now, JBJ said:

Ummmm...yeah.  That's what happened.

Entrapment almost always requires coercing someone to do something they were not otherwise inclined to do.  Captainant kind of misstated the "tricking" part.

Nevertheless, he wasn't tricked.  He lied pretty much completely voluntarily and, it looks like, knowing pretty damn well they knew he lied immediately.

This is kind of analogous to dragging him in for no reason and asking him a bunch of questions about various stuff, some of which he lies about.

Part of the difficulty in understanding it is that it's a really thin defense.

And, it's important to understand that the factors leading to dismissal have not been proven or subject to any judgment by "the system."

[jimmyjazz 46981]

15 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Imagine that you have enemies in the govt that want to send you to prison, but they can't find anything solid to pin on you. But say they are surveiling you and discover you did something embarrassing, but totally legal. Like cheating on your wife with another man. 

If they question you about it, and it has nothing to do with any criminal activity, it isn't a federal crime if you lie. 

OK.  Were Flynn's lies unrelated to criminal activity being investigated?

[JBJ 3780]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nevertheless, he wasn't tricked.  He lied pretty much completely voluntarily and, it looks like, knowing pretty damn well they knew he lied immediately.

See above edit, but I don't mean the interview.  I mean the closed investigation being open.  Flynn's actions were not illegal except as the FBI intentionally left open a closed case.  The government turned a non-crime into a crime by their own negligent action (or more likely willful action).

That's entrapment (unless is isn't a crime at all, which I can accept).

Using the taco example it's like the government openning a fake investigation into a taco joint in order to make the taco question perjurable.

Edited May 7, 2020 by JBJ

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

Oh my god you troll. He plead guilty. Twice. This dismissal is partisan bullshit and nothing else 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

See above edit, but I don't mean the interview.  I mean the closed investigation being open.  Flynn's actions were not illegal except as the FBI intentionally left open a closed case.  The government turned a non-crime into a crime by their own negligent action (or more likely willful action).

That's entrapment (unless is isn't a crime at all, which I can accept).

Using the taco example it's like the government openning a fake investigation into a taco joint in order to make the taco question perjurable.

Using your example, it would be entrapment if the LEOs coerced a subject to lie about the tacos. That did not happen here. Flynn chose to lie about his conversations, he was not coerced to. This is not entrapment. 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

11 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Is this kinda like when Whitewater morphed into a blowjob investigation and they charged a sitting POTUS with perjury?

 

Well, that was a statement made under oath in court. 

[Foosters 18228]

1 minute ago, Hookah Horns said:

Well, that was a statement made under oath in court. 

Yeah, I get they're not analogous. I just found it amusing that you described exactly how Clinton went down.

[Hookah Horns 3089]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK.  Were Flynn's lies unrelated to criminal activity being investigated?

I honestly don't know because I haven't been following what this is all about and just jumped into this thread to find out. But DOJ is saying they are. And that the whole line of questioning was a pretext to catch him in a lie. 

[TwiceHorn 31992]

1 minute ago, Hookah Horns said:

Well, that was a statement made under oath in court. 

To a grand jury, I believe.  And in a civil deposition, IIRC.

And although Starr went all over hell and gone with that investigation, under the rules at the time, he had to clear it with a special panel of the DC Court of Appeals, which he did.

[tantric superman 4668]

 

 

[jimmyjazz 46981]

3 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Well, that was a statement made under oath in court. 

Is that different?  Serious question.  What does "under oath" or "in court" have to do with the illegality of the lie?  Seems to me that 18 USC 1001 simply limits the crime to "material" lies.  If I lied about immaterial information under oath in court would that be perjury?

Honestly, I'm trying to learn the differences here.

[TwiceHorn 31992]

10 minutes ago, JBJ said:

See above edit, but I don't mean the interview.  I mean the closed investigation being open.  Flynn's actions were not illegal except as the FBI intentionally left open a closed case.  The government turned a non-crime into a crime by their own negligent action (or more likely willful action).

That's entrapment (unless is isn't a crime at all, which I can accept).

Using the taco example it's like the government openning a fake investigation into a taco joint in order to make the taco question perjurable.

Yes that is a decent analogy, but that wouldn't be entrapment.  Cops can lie their asses off about situations and facts and other things to put you in a position to lie without it being entrapment.  Entrapment almost universally requires coercion to act in a way you would not otherwise act.  Putting you in a situation where you tell a lie, even under false pretenses, is not entrapment unless there is coercion.

[washparkhorn 9967]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK.  Were Flynn's lies unrelated to criminal activity being investigated?

yes. The investigation against him - Operation Razor - was over. The investigators found no evidence he was tied to the umbrella investigation - Operation Crossfire - as well. 

[washparkhorn 9967]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Is that different?  Serious question.  What does "under oath" or "in court" have to do with the illegality of the lie?  Seems to me that 18 USC 1001 simply limits the crime to "material" lies.  If I lied about immaterial information under oath in court would that be perjury?

Honestly, I'm trying to learn the differences here.

No difference. A 1001 lie has to relate to an ongoing investigation in order to be material. There wasn't any against Flynn, so materiality is difficult to establish for prosecutors.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Peak Trump.

The United States is a corrupt sham republic, thanks to trump, the republicans and their enablers, including some of the more obvious posters on this site. 

The trolls on this site are pleased. They will claim to lambast this obviously corrupt decision while elsewhere posting gifs designed to hurt Biden. 

It is what is it. And will be until Trump is hauled off to jail after Biden is sworn in as president. Unless he’s already holed up in a Russian embassy somewhere. 

[washparkhorn 9967]

Remember, the conversation with the Russian was after the election and the investigations were for acts before the election.

[washparkhorn 9967]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Peak Trump.

The United States is a corrupt sham republic, thanks to trump, the republicans and their enablers, including some of the more obvious posters on this site. 

The trolls on this site are pleased. They will claim to lambast this obviously corrupt decision while elsewhere posting gifs designed to hurt Biden. 

It is what is it. And will be until Trump is hauled off to jail after Biden is sworn in as president. Unless he’s already holed up in a Russian embassy somewhere. 

Not material. 

[Captainant 28398]

I don't get the hangup on the "investigation was winding down" thing either. The subject matter they were asking him about was extremely relevant. Lying about communications with foreign diplomats is a common way to induce further lies which can be used or manipulated. It's an old cold war tactic for recruiting sources. 

And wouldn't you know it, Flynn later got his security clearance revoked and was fired AND PENCE SAID HE LIED ABOUT IT ON HIS CLEARANCE APPLICATION, WHICH IS ALSO A FELONY, because he lied about this very thing. 

Flynn's investigation was a counter Intel investigation. Their questions and actions were salient to their charge of protecting the US governments interests and ability to keep secrets. 

And ya know, he pled guilty to it TWICE. Was he lying then, or lying now?

Edited May 7, 2020 by Captainant

[TwiceHorn 31992]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Is that different?  Serious question.  What does "under oath" or "in court" have to do with the illegality of the lie?  Seems to me that 18 USC 1001 simply limits the crime to "material" lies.  If I lied about immaterial information under oath in court would that be perjury?

Honestly, I'm trying to learn the differences here.

All crimes in the United States are defined in statutes.  If you look back at 18 USC 1001, toward the end, it says this doesn't apply to judicial proceedings, i.e. court.

Then you have to go to another statute, probably 18 USC 1621, which has different elements than 1001, to wit:

Whoever—

(1)

having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

(2)

in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

There is no crime in the United States of generally "lying to a federal agent," or "perjury" as understood by some vague lay definition.  Every time, to find a crime, you have to go to a statute and make sure that the acts and proof line up with the requirements or elements of the statute and the way the statute has been interpreted by the courts.

Note that the above requires "taking an oath" as well as material matter.  It also doesn't matter whether it is actually false, just that the witness does not believe it to be true.

Edited May 7, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Hookah Horns 3089]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Is that different?  Serious question.  What does "under oath" or "in court" have to do with the illegality of the lie?  Seems to me that 18 USC 1001 simply limits the crime to "material" lies.  If I lied about immaterial information under oath in court would that be perjury?

Honestly, I'm trying to learn the differences here.

Not really, they're just different statutes. Materiality is required for federal perjury as well (I didn't think it was). Perjury in Texas, though, has no such requirement. 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Hookah Horns

[washparkhorn 9967]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I don't get the hangup on the "investigation was winding down" thing either.

The investigation into Flynn's pre-election activities was closed. And this was a post-election event. It goes to materiality.

 

[TwiceHorn 31992]

An historical note.  Prior to the 20th century, many or most crimes were "common law" crimes.  Those crimes still had elements, but they were found in case law and were a bit less precise than current statutory crimes.  They more resembled notions like "it's a crime to lie to a federal agent," but there was still considerable nuance found in the case law.

A fundamental notion of due process in the US, and elsewhere, is that you must be put on notice of what behavior is criminal, both as a general matter and when you are charged with a crime.  It was decided that statutes did a better job of this than the common law, so statutory crimes became the order of the day.

Furthermore, in the 20th century, particularly the latter half, crimes began to proliferate into areas where there was no crime previously and no common law to establish its elements.  Part of this was a function of modernity, part of it was basically pure political grandstanding (Aint got no other ideas for makin things better, let's make something a crime and tell people how concerned we are with their safety or prey on their fears).

The net result is that we have a multiplicity, a plethora, ney a fucking shitload, of statutory crimes here in the US of A.

Fun fact:  no one knows how many federal crimes there are.  The consensus is more than 5,000, but how many more is unknown.

Edited May 7, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Hookah Horns 3089]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

An historical note.  Prior to the 20th century, many or most crimes were "common law" crimes.  Those crimes still had elements, but they were found in case law and were a bit less precise than current statutory crimes.  They more resembled notions like "it's a crime to lie to a federal agent," but there was still considerable nuance found in the case law.

A fundamental notion of due process in the US, and elsewhere, is that you must be put on notice of what behavior is criminal, both as a general matter and when you are charged with a crime.  It was decided that statutes did a better job of this than the common law, so statutory crimes became the order of the day.

Furthermore, in the 20th century, particularly the latter half, crimes began to proliferate into areas where there was no crime previously and no common law to establish its elements.  Part of this was a function of modernity, part of it was basically pure political grandstanding (Aint got no other ideas for makin things better, let's make something a crime and tell people how concerned we are with their safety or prey on their fears).

The net result is that we have a multiplicity, a plethora, ney a fucking shitload, of statutory crimes here in the US of A.

Fun fact:  no one knows how many federal crimes there are.  The consensus is more than 5,000, but how many more is unknown.

I was shocked to learn that fact about the number of federal crimes/regulations. It's no wonder we lead the world in per capita incarcerations. 

[elfenix 34658]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

18 USC  1001

(a)  Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully--

(1)  falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2)  makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;  or

(3)  makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331 ), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.  If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591 , then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

(b)  Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

(c)  With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to--

(1)  administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch;  or

(2)  any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

i feel like requiring the investigators to not know the answer to a question they're asking in order to preserve perjury violates lawyering 101. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11856]

Well we’ve established he’s an admitted liar, and a borderline traitor.  The legal ramifications of that are now immaterial, given the state of our justice system.  He’ll always be an admitted liar and borderline traitor.  

[wildcat09 29559]

8 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Well we’ve established he’s an admitted liar, and a borderline traitor.  The legal ramifications of that are now immaterial, given the state of our justice system.  He’ll always be an admitted liar and borderline traitor.  

Who will be celebrated as a hero by the entire GOP and probably reappointed to a position with significant power.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11856]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Who will be celebrated as a hero by the entire GOP and probably reappointed to a position with significant power.

[JBJ 3780]

48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes that is a decent analogy, but that wouldn't be entrapment.  Cops can lie their asses off about situations and facts and other things to put you in a position to lie without it being entrapment.  Entrapment almost universally requires coercion to act in a way you would not otherwise act.  Putting you in a situation where you tell a lie, even under false pretenses, is not entrapment unless there is coercion.

I think this response answers my question, but again I'm not questioning the interview process itself.  I get that cops can set you up to lie without coercion.

I'm wondering about this dynamic:

Police do nothing -> Legal Behavior

Police secretly do something -> illegal behavior

If it is illegal to open blue doors and the police paint your front door blue without you knowing.  Can they sit outside and wait for you to open it?  They've modified the legality of the behavior without really coercing your behavior.

Maybe that's not entrapment, but it should be something.

Edited May 7, 2020 by JBJ

[ChiTownDoc 21325]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Kind of unique to me, but for the most part, I get no joy from sending people to prison.

The guy's reputation is trashed among all but hardcore Trumpkins, and even prison wouldn't have changed that.

You say that as if hardcore trumpkins aren’t all over the god damned place.  If he plays his cards right he will make 7 figures a year playing up to the rubes vs getting assfucked in prison nightly.

  
Sorry, I don’t share your views but I get what you’re saying.  Just doesn’t resonate with me...

[TwiceHorn 31992]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I think this response answers my question, but again I'm not questioning the interview process itself.  I get that cops can set you up to lie without coercion.

I'm wondering about this dynamic:

Police do nothing -> Legal Behavior

Police secretly do something -> illegal behavior

If it is illegal to open blue doors and the police paint your front door blue without you knowing.  Can they sit outside and wait for you to open it?

Maybe that's not entrapment, but it should be something.

Probably the most fundamental problem there is lack of mens rea.  Because you didn't or couldn't know that your door was blue, you had no intention of opening a blue door and that probably wouldn't be a crime for that reason.

Now, if the cops painted your door blue, and told you they had and then drew their guns and started advancing on you, forcing you through the door, or told you they were going to shoot you if you didn't leave by the door, that would be entrapment.  You knew it was a blue door and you knowingly opened it, but you wouldn't have but for the cops' actions.

[wildcat09 29559]

Someone’s putting in some real legwork to convince himself that the traitor who committed a bunch of crimes, and got a sweetheart plea deal to only plead guilty to the least serious, actually got royally fucked over by law enforcement. It couldn’t be that he was always given serious leniency, due to law enforcement’s sympathies for people of his public stature and political leanings, that they would have never extended to an ordinary American who had done what he’d done.

[TwiceHorn 31992]

6 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

You say that as if hardcore trumpkins aren’t all over the god damned place.  If he plays his cards right he will make 7 figures a year playing up to the rubes vs getting assfucked in prison nightly.

  
Sorry, I don’t share your views but I get what you’re saying.  Just doesn’t resonate with me...

You don't get assfucked in a federal prison camp, unless you want to be.

He would probably be even more likely to make 7 figures playing up to the rubes as a Trumpkin prison martyr.  Most of those types will worship him regardless.  As far as polite society and most of the military, he's donezo.

But, as mentioned, I think we as a society default to prison way too often, so my views on sending people to prison are aberrational.

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[JBJ 3780]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably the most fundamental problem there is lack of mens rea.  Because you didn't or couldn't know that your door was blue, you had no intention of opening a blue door and that probably wouldn't be a crime for that reason.

I understood that it was a dumb analogy as I was typing it.  But does anyone actually know the answer?

Edited May 7, 2020 by JBJ

[ChiTownDoc 21325]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You don't get assfucked in a federal prison camp, unless you want to be.

He would probably be even more likely to make 7 figures playing up to the rubes as a Trumpkin prison martyr.

But, as mentioned, I think we as a society default to prison way too often, so my views on sending people to prison are aberrational.

 

Fine - Ass fucked figuratively more so than actually.  Either way.  Prison for drugs etc, I agree.  Prison is a deterrent for some evil assholes and it’s a necessary part of society...

He puts in his 12-15 years then comes out and makes money - more power to him.  

[wildcat09 29559]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I understood that it was a dumb analogy as I was typing it.  But does anyone actually know the answer?

Depends on the race of the suspect.

[TwiceHorn 31992]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

It understood that it was a dumb analogy as I was typing it.  But does anyone actually know the answer?

As far as punishment for the cops?  The first "punishment" is that the defendant is not convicted of the crime.

In most cases, there's no "built in" punishment for cops who entrap or otherwise engage in shady practices.  They can be sued for civil rights violations, and maybe false imprisonment or arrest depending on the state.

[TwiceHorn 31992]

1 minute ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Fine - Ass fucked figuratively more so than actually.  Either way.  Prison for drugs etc, I agree.  Prison is a deterrent for some evil assholes and it’s a necessary part of society...

He puts in his 12-15 years then comes out and makes money - more power to him.  

3-6 months, if that.  And, I won't get into it, but prison generally isn't a deterrent.  Its most beneficial effect is incapacitation:  they aren't among us doing more crimes.

[JBJ 3780]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As far as punishment for the cops?  The first "punishment" is that the defendant is not convicted of the crime.

In most cases, there's no "built in" punishment for cops who entrap or otherwise engage in shady practices.  They can be sued for civil rights violations, and maybe false imprisonment or arrest depending on the state.

No.  Reconsider the question as if opening a blue door were a strict liability crime.

 

[TwiceHorn 31992]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

No.  Reconsider the question as if opening a blue door were a strict liability crime.

 

Don't think it would be entrapment.

Strict liability crimes are virtually if not completely unconstitutional here.  Statutory rape is one example and I don't think it's been tested.

To avoid a crime being strict liability, some courts have provided a good faith defense:  if you had an actual reason to believe you weren't committing a crime ("my door was white yesterday and I didn't paint it") you skate.

Even if it were a strict strict liability crime, a prosecutor would be unlikely to charge that under those circumstances, and a court might dismiss it on some generic police misconduct grounds.

Generally speaking, a court has the power to dismiss a prosecution when it doesn't like it, even when it doesn't rise necessarily to the formal grounds of unconstitutionality by Brady violation or the like.