Citation network
Mathews Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 24, 1988
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
-
Mathews v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 485 U.S. 58 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Mathews v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 485 U.S. 58 (1988) Mathews v. UnitedSearch
-
the criminal design in the mind of the defendant.' United States v. RussellSearch
-
history in detail. Suffice it to say that the Court has consistently adhered to the view, first enunciated in Sorrells v. UnitedSearch
-
of the crime and a lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant to engage in the criminal conduct. See Sherman v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. RussellSearch
-
Hampton v. UnitedSearch
-
recognized defense for which there exists evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his favor. Stevenson v. UnitedSearch
-
Keeble v. UnitedSearch
-
Sansone v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
in the heat of passion. Federal appellate cases also permit the raising of inconsistent defenses. See Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Womack v. UnitedSearch
-
the practical consequences will be less burdensome than the Government fears. The Court of Appeals in United States v. DemmaSearch
-
Two other Circuits have adopted the approach taken by the Seventh Circuit. See United States v. HillSearch
-
United States v. WhitleySearch
-
may not affirmatively deny committing the elements of the crime if he desires an entrapment instruction. United States v. AnneseSearch
-
United States v. MayoSearch
-
United States v. DortaSearch
-
the elements of the crime may rely on entrapment if the issue is raised by the Government's evidence. United States v. SmithSearch
-
to contest the intent element of the offense charged, but not the acts, while arguing entrapment. United States v. HenrySearch
-
is entitled to an entrapment instruction even if he testifies and denies all elements of the offense. United States v. DemmaSearch
-
Hansford v. UnitedSearch
-
from this Court's holdings that the defendant's predisposition is relevant to the entrapment defense. Hampton v. UnitedSearch
-
Page 485 U. S. 67 United States v. RussellSearch
-
Sherman v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 369 , 356 U. S. 378 (1958) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment). See also Sorrells v. UnitedSearch
-
has a right to lie at trial, or a right to solicit his attorney's aid in executing such a defense strategy. See Nix v. WhitesideSearch
-
inadmissible evidence to prevent a defendant from procuring an acquittal via false testimony. See, e.g., Oregon v. HassSearch
-
Harris v. NewSearch
-
in a criminal trial is always greater than in a civil setting, because the stakes are so much higher. See Britt v. NorthSearch
-
United States v. DortaSearch
-
some cases have explicitly permitted inconsistent criminal defenses outside of the entrapment area, e.g., Whittaker v. UnitedSearch
-
F.2d 631, 632 (1960), others have been less receptive to this defense strategy, see, e.g., United States v. ErvinSearch
-
Blunt v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. SmithSearch
-
United States v. BuishasSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Mathews v. UnitedSearch
-
Sorrells v. UnitedSearch
-
See Sherman v. UnitedSearch
-
Stevenson v. UnitedSearch
-
See Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
Womack v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. DemmaSearch
-
the Seventh Circuit. See United States v. HillSearch
-
United States v. AnneseSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial