Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to compare the American and European standards of the inadmissibility
of evidence of unlawful police entrapment. In US criminal procedure, which permits active
forms of entrapment, the US Supreme Court and most federal courts apply a subjective test for
the entrapment defence, focusing on the predisposition of the person provoked to commit the
crime and, less often, an objective test examining the legality of government agents’ actions.
The Strasbourg standard (including German cases) is based on two tests: a substantive one
(examining both the predisposition of the person being provoked and the legality of the police
actions) and a procedural one, which consists in verifying the reliability of the national courts’
recognition of the charge of incitement to commit a crime by the police The basic difference
between the analysed standards is to be found in the effects of illegal entrapment. In the US
system, it is a justification to the perpetrator’s responsibility for a crime committed as a result
of entrapment, and the Strasbourg standard allows for sanctioning the negative effects of such
illegal evidence to be convalidated in criminal trial when the Court considers that “the trial
as a whole was fair”.
References
Gontarski W., Granice legalności prowokacji policyjnej. Glosa do wyroku ETPC z dnia 5 lutego 2008 r., 74420/01, LEX/el. 2016.
Hegmann S., w: J.P. Graf (org.), Strafprozessordnung. MitGerichtsverfassungsgesetz und Nebengesetzen. Kommentar, München 2010.
Herzog F., Infiltrativ-provokatorische Ermittlungsoperationen als Verfahrenshindernis, „Strafverteidiger” 2003, no. 7.
Hochberg J., The FBI Criminal Undercover Operations Review Committee, „United States Attorneys’ Bulletin” 2002, vol. 50, no. 2.
Krauß K., V-Leute im Strafprozeß und Menschenschrechtskonwention, Freiburg im Breisgau 1999.
Kulesza C., Czynności operacyjno-rozpoznawcze a zasada rzetelnego procesu w orzecznictwie Trybunału w Strasburgu i sądów polskich, „Przegląd Policyjny” 2008, vol. 90, no. 2.
Lach A., Rzetelne postępowanie dowodowe w sprawach karnych w świetle orzecznictwa strasburskiego, Warszawa 2018.
Lippke R., A Limited Defense of What Some Will Regard as Entrapment, „Legal Theory” 2017, vol. 23, no. 4.
McAdams R., Reforming Entrapment Doctrine in United States v Hollingsworth, „University of Chicago Law Review” 2007, vol. 74, Special Issue.
Reindl-Krauskopf S., Strafmilderung bei unzulässiger Tatprovokation, „Juristische Blätter” 2009, no. 10.
Roth J.A., The Anomaly of Entrapment, „Washington University Law Review” 2014, vol. 91.
Roxin C., Schünemann B., Strafverfahrensrecht, München 2009.
Schmitt B, Meyer-Goßer L., Strafprozessordnung. Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Nebengesetze und ergänzende Bestimmungen, München 2017.
Schultz C., Victim or the Crime: The Government’s Burden in Proving Predisposition in Federal Entrapment Cases, „DePaul Law Review” 1999, vol. 48, no. 4.
Sherman J., A Person Otherwise Innocent: Policing Entrapment in Preventative, Undercover Counterterrorism Investigations, „University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law” 2009, vol. 11, no. 5.
Thaman S., Fruits of the Poisonous Tree in Comparative Law, „Southwestern Journal of International Law” 2010, vol. 16, no. 2.
The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation, Thomas Kenneth R. (editor in chief), Washington 2014.
Wagner G., United States’ Policy Analysis on Undercover Operations, „International Journal of Police Science & Management” 2007, vol. 9, no. 4.