People v. Isaacson

In People v. Isaacson, 44 NY2d 511 (1978), a third party, as a result of police brutalization and trickery, formed the misconception that he was facing a stiff prison sentence and so became an informant. At the behest of the police, he proceeded to contact various individuals, including Isaacson, a Pennsylvania resident with no prior record, who, although initially unwilling, following persistent solicitation finally agreed to sell the informant drugs in a quantity requested by the police. Isaacson was lured by trickery into New York where the sale was made in accordance with specifications detailed by the police. The New York Court of Appeal held Isaacson was denied due process even though the defense of entrapment was not made out because of defendant's predisposition to commit the crime. The New York court set forth four "illustrative" factors to be considered in determining whether due process principles had been transgressed: "(1) whether the police manufactured a crime which otherwise would not likely have occurred, or merely involved themselves in an ongoing criminal activity ; (2) whether the police themselves engaged in criminal or improper conduct repugnant to a sense of justice ; (3) whether the defendant's reluctance to commit the crime is overcome by appeals to humanitarian instincts such as sympathy or past friendship, by temptation of exorbitant gain, or by persistent solicitation in the face of unwillingness ; and (4) whether the record reveals simply a desire to obtain a conviction with no reading that the police motive is to prevent further crime or protect the populace. . . . " ( People v. Isaacson, supra , 378 N.E.2d at p. 83.) The Court of Appeals held that "even though defendant did not sustain his burden as to [the] affirmative defense [of entrapment, the police conduct, when tested by due process standards, was so egregious and deprivative as to impose upon [the court] an obligation to dismiss. The court further held that when determining whether due process principles had been violated the following factors should be considered (1) whether the police manufactured a crime which otherwise would not likely have occurred, or merely involved themselves in an ongoing criminal activity; (2) whether the police themselves engaged in criminal or improper conduct repugnant to a sense of justice; (3) whether the defendant's reluctance to commit the crime is overcome by appeals to humanitarian instincts such as sympathy or past friendship, by temptation of exorbitant gain, or by persistent solicitation in the face of unwillingness; and (4) whether the record reveals simply a desire to obtain a conviction with no reading that the police motive is to prevent further crime or protect the populace. Id. at 521.