see below assignment

Based on your Phase 4 Key Assignment scenario, you have been advised that the defendant has appealed his case to the District Court of Appeals, and the court has agreed to hear arguments as to the issue of police entrapment. Using material from your text and other credible online sources, answer the following questions:

Assignment Guidelines

• Revise the Phase 4 Key Assignment based on instructor feedback and peer review.
• Address the following, and add your responses to your Key Assignment revision:
  • What is the difference between an intermediate appellate court and a high appellate court? Are they referred to by other names? Explain.
  • What options does the court have regarding the case in question? Be specific.
  • If the appellate court finds that the defense is valid and reverses the judgment, will you be held liable either civilly, criminally, or both? Will the department be held liable?
    • If you or the department is held liable, explain the theory involved.
• Be sure to reference all sources using APA style.
• The case involves a man
  who was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance. The man
  was charged with buying controlled substance from an undercover police officer.
  The undercover police was working an undercover detail in a neighborhood known
  for drug activity. He then notice a vehicle stopped at the intersection waiting
  for the traffic light to change. The man in the vehicle made eye contact with
  the undercover police. The police approached the man and initiated a
  conversation with him. The police ask him if he needs anything and he
  responded, “What do you have?” The
  police asked him what he was looking for, and he responded that he was looking
  to score. The police officer showed him a small bag containing a white powdery
  substance and he asks how much. On being told the price, he hands the police a
  $20 bill and they completed transaction. At that time, the man drove off and is
  stopped a block away by a marked unit. The individual is placed under arrest
  for drug possession and purchasing drugs, and he is taken to jail. At his
  trial, the man claimed that he was a victim of entrapment by the police.
  However, he was found guilty and sentenced to serve 5 years in jail and given
  credit for the 3 months he already had served in jail. The issue at hand is
  whether the man is liable for the 5 year sentence or whether by virtue of being
  entrapped, should be given a gentler treatment. By reviewing different cases
  related to undercover and entrapment, the present paper intends to give a
  verdict as to whether the man should indeed be considered guilty and charged
  for possessing a controlled substance. The first section will first define and
  describe entrapment and how the court normally treat cases of entrapment. The
  best way of addressing the case entails justifying whether the defendant or the
  man alleged to have committed crime was trapped by traffic light or whether he
  was to buy the controlled substance even if there was no traffic light.

  Issues present in the case

  
  The main issue present in the case is whether the
  appellant is liable for the crime or whether the undercover police used traffic
  light to force and persuade the appellant into committing the crime.

  Decision

  
  From the case presented, it is apparent that the
  defendant is charged with possession of a controlled substance. At his trial,
  he claimed that he was a victim of entrapment by the police. He was found
  guilty and sentenced to serve 5 years in jail and given credit for the 3 months
  he already had served in jail.

  Reasoning

  
  To be able to determine the reasoning or the rationale
  that led to the conviction of the defendant, it is important to review similar
  court cases and the verdict that was made during such cases. It is also
  important to understand how courts normally treat the case of entrapment. By
  understanding entrapment and reviewing related cases, it will be possible to
  determine whether the decision by court to convict the appellant is legal or
  not.

  Principally, entrapment entails the use of police laying
  a trap for the defendant or an opportunist to fall into. It is a form of police
  trickery and may result in the police catching the defendant in the act of
  committing the offence. The police officer responsible for entrapment is called
  agent provocateur. Such officer incite a defendant to commit a criminal offence
  which he would not otherwise have committed. In most cases, the court treats
  the case of use of an undercover police officer who does not incite and offence
  and an agent provocateur, who does. A case to justify this involves a case of R
  v. Christou and Wright. This is a case involving entrapment and undercover
  police officers. In this case, the police set up a fake jewellery shop called
  ‘Stardust Jewellers’ in Tottenham in north London. The shop was staffed solely
  by undercover police officers. The intention of the shop was to recover stolen
  property and arrest those who were handling stolen jewellery. The shop had
  hidden recordings equipment and each customer who was trying to sell stolen
  property was recovered. Several customers were charged in respect to numerous
  transactions. The prosecution wished to adduce the recordings in evidence at
  their trials and this was allowed by the trial judge. The defendants tried to
  appeal against their convictions arguing that the evidence of the recordings
  should have been excluded because it have an adverse effect on the fairness of
  the proceedings. However, their appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on
  the basis that the defendants had not been tricked by the police, but they had
  “voluntarily applied themselves to the trick.” The court adds that the police
  officers acting as staff in the shop were on “equal terms” with the customers.
  It was maintained that the defendant were doing in that shop exactly what they
  intended to do an in all probability, they were ready to do it.

  Another case that worth reviewing is the case between
  Williams and another v. DPP. In this case, the police officers left a van
  unattended and unsecured on a busy high street in an area with a high crime
  rate. The van had a load of what looked like cigarette packets, but were in
  fact dummy packets. The undercover police then hid themselves in a nearby
  location and waited for people to steal the cigarette. During the hearing, the
  court held that the police had done nothing to force, persuade, encourage or
  coerce the appellants. They had not acted as agents provocateurs. The court
  maintained that the appellants had acted voluntarily in the absence of any
  pressure from the police and with full understanding of their own dishonesty
  and that the admission of evidence of the police would not have adverse effect
  on the fairness of the proceedings. Several other cases that can be cited and
  reviewed include, but not limited to the case of R v. Stagg and also the case
  of R v. Smurthwaite. All these cases reveals that in a case where the
  undercover police did not coerced, forced, persuade and compel the appellant,
  then the appellant can be held liable for the crime committed.

  Dissenting opinions

  
  A closer look at the case presented and the way similar
  cases are often approached reveals that courts are often fair in their
  approaches and must first establish whether there was fairness or whether the
  appellant was coerced or persuaded to commit the crime. A closer look at the
  case reveals that the defendant was not persuaded. In fact he was the one who
  initiated the conversation. This implies that he was looking for the controlled
  substances. This means that the charges against him are valid and justifiable.

  Additional questions

  
  Did
  you have probable cause to approach the defendant while he was parked at the
  traffic light? Why or why not? Defend your answer.

  
  No, there was no probable
  cause. It was just a matter of trying to find out whether defendant is among
  the victims. This is because he was the one to initiate everything. In other
  words, the undercover police did not have prior knowledge about defendant.

  Do
  you feel that the entrapment defense is a valid one, considering the assignment
  scenario? Why or why not? Defend your answer

  
  The entrapment defense is
  not valid because the victim was the one who initiated the conversation

  Is
  providing the opportunity for someone to commit a crime the same as entrapment?
  Why or why not?

  
  No, it is not the same
  because it is not similar to forcing someone to commit a crime

  If
  the substance were marijuana, how much would be needed for a misdemeanor
  charge? A felony?

  
  It could have been a
  felony because possession of one controlled substance was a
  felony, while the other is a misdemeanor.

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  References

  Top of Form

  Mowbray, A. (2007). Cases and
  materials on the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford [u.a.: Oxford Univ. Press.

  Bottom of Form

  Top of Form

  Hartman, G. R., Mersky, R. M., Tate,
  C. L., & United States. (2004). Landmark Supreme Court cases: The most influential decisions of the
  Supreme Court of the United States. New York:
  Facts on File.

  Bottom of Form

  Top of Form

  Bannon, M. E. (2003). A quick
  reference guide to contemporary criminal procedure for law enforcement officers: One hundred
  notable United States Supreme Court decisions and their effect on modern policing in America.
  Springfield, Ill: C.C. Thomas.

  Bottom of Form