Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hampton Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 27, 1976

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

64 entries 3 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. imbler Vs. Pachtman US Supreme Court · Nov 03, 1975
  2. United States Vs. Archer US Supreme Court · May 01, 1916
  3. United States Vs. Mosley US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1915
    Relied / Followed
  4. Hampton v. United
    Search
  5. States - 425 U.S. 484 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Hampton v. United
    Search
  6. States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976) Hampton v. United
    Search
  7. defense of entrapment unavailable but also a violation of due process rights cannot properly be claimed. United States v. Russell
    Search
  8. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument and affirmed the conviction, relying on our opinion in United States v. Russell
    Search
  9. agent supplied a necessary ingredient in the manufacture of an illicit drug. We reaffirmed the principle of Sorrells v. United
    Search
  10. States, 287 U. S. 435 (1932), and Sherman v. United
    Search
  11. principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction, cf. Rochin v. California
    Search
  12. culpable defendant, but in prosecuting the police under the applicable provisions of state or federal law. See O'Shea v. Littleton
    Search
  13. plurality opinion, as it would unnecessarily reach and decide difficult questions not before us. In United States v. Russell
    Search
  14. See Rochin v. California
    Search
  15. Sherman v. United
    Search
  16. yet to confront Government overinvolvement in areas outside the realm of contraband offenses. Cf. United States v. Archer
    Search
  17. Sorrells v. United
    Search
  18. Further, it is an essential ingredient in that manufacturing process and is very difficult to obtain. United States v. Russell
    Search
  19. was first recognized in the context of simple solicitation of an individual to sell contraband. See, e.g., Sherman v. United
    Search
  20. in contraband offenses has reached more intensive levels than those revealed in this Court's cases. See Greene v. United
    Search
  21. United States v. Russell
    Search
  22. Sherman v. United
    Search
  23. of judgments as to when such fairness has been denied an accused in light of all the circumstances. See, e.g., Rochin v. California
    Search
  24. Ham v. South
    Search
  25. a sufficient reason to deny the federal judiciary's power to make them when warranted by the circumstances. Rochin v. California
    Search
  26. Sherman v. United
    Search
  27. Rochin v. California
    Search
  28. by law enforcement authorities in dealing effectively with an expanding narcotics traffic, cf. United States v. Russell
    Search
  29. concur, dissenting. I joined my Brother STEWART's dissent in United Page 425 U. S. 496 States. v. Russell
    Search
  30. S. 423 , 411 U. S. 439 (1973), and Mr. Justice Frankfurter's opinion concurring in the result in Sherman v. United
    Search
  31. S. 369 , 356 U. S. 378 (1958). Those opinions and the separate opinion of Mr. Justice Roberts in Sorrells v. United
    Search
  32. activity involved in this case, while the Government was not similarly involved in Russell's crime. See Greene v. United
    Search
  33. him to another agent as a potential purchaser, the Government's role has passed the point of toleration. United States v. West
    Search
  34. nothing less than buying contraband from itself through an intermediary and jailing the intermediary. United States v. Bueno
    Search
  35. individuals, yet that is precisely what set-ups like the instant one are intended to accomplish. Cf. United States v. Russell
    Search
  36. the contraband that the defendant is convicted of selling, there is entrapment as a matter of law. United States v. Bueno
    Search
  37. supra. That court has also concluded that this holding was not affected by Russell. See, e.g., United States v. Oquendo
    Search
  38. United States v. West
    Search
  39. Cf. Olmstead v. United
    Search
  40. Casey v. United
    Search
  41. or (2) that the defendant would have obtained the contraband elsewhere to complete the transaction. Cf. United States v. West
    Search
  42. United States v. Bueno
    Search
  43. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also followed Bueno in United States v. McGrath
    Search
  44. and the Court of Appeals apparently concluded that Bueno did not survive Russell. United States v. McGrath
    Search
  45. the putative pusher is worth the investigative effort only if he has ready access to a supply. See United States v. Russell
    Search
  46. U. S. 445 n. 3 (STEWART, J., dissenting), some state courts have adopted the objective approach. See, e.g., State v. Mullen
    Search
  47. People v. Turner
    Search
  48. Lynn v. State
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Hampton v. United
    Search
  50. United States v. Russell
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial