Sorrells v. United States

Background

A man was tried for possessing and selling a half gallon of whiskey after a prohibition agent, posing as a friendly ex‑service man, repeatedly asked him for liquor. The defendant denied having liquor at first, then left and returned with the bottle after persistent requests. Witnesses described the defendant as steadily employed and of good character; the agent admitted his purpose was to prosecute the seller.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the defense of entrapment—being lured to commit an offense by government agents—could be raised and sent to the jury. The Court explained that while officers may use decoys and ruses to catch people already disposed to crime, they cannot create crime by persuading an otherwise innocent person to commit it. Because the evidence supported that the agent originated and induced the offense, the judge should not have taken the entrapment issue away from the jury.

Real world impact

As a result, prosecutions based on acts that were the product of government instigation cannot be treated the same as ordinary crimes; juries must be allowed to weigh entrapment evidence. The case was reversed and sent back for further proceedings consistent with allowing that defense, which may produce dismissals or new trials in comparable situations.

Dissents or concurrances

One Justice would have affirmed the conviction. Another wrote separately arguing the court should go further, quash the indictment, and discharge the defendant because the government officers created the crime; two Justices joined that view.