Vaccaro v. Collier’s Empirical Analysis
38 F.2d 862 · 1930
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1977
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 651 · 18 U.S.C. § 655 · 26 U.S.C. § 211
Relies on Fernandez v. Phillips · Grin v. Shine · Grimm v. United States · Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Strube · Newman v. States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It becomes necessary to understand fully what is meant by entrapment, and to what extent it may be resorted to. Whenever an officer of the law, by any plan or contrivance, causes a person to commit a crime, such official is said to entrap such person. We may assume that the particular offense would not have been committed except for the act of the officer. Nevertheless, if the person so entrapped was known to have, or was reasonably suspected of having, violated the law, such conduct on the part of the officer is lawful. Thus the apprehension of persons through decoys, through opportunity afforded to sell whisky, narcotics, or to do other illegal acts, has been generally upheld. Grimm v. United States, 156 U.S. 604 , 15 S.Ct. 470 , 39 L.Ed. 550 ; Newman v. United States, 4 Cir., 299 F. 128 ; Hummelshime v. State, 125 Md. 563 , 93 A. 990 , Ann.Cas. 1917E, 1072. On the other hand, officers of the law may not induce persons, who it is not reasonable to suppose would otherwise violate the law, to do so-, and then prosecute them. Public policy and fair play forbid going to such an extreme. The question, therefore, is always one of degree. A suspected person may.be tested by being offered opportunity to transgress the law in such manner as is not unusual, but may not be put under any form of extraordinary temptation or inducement. Thus, since a morphine dealer usually deals with addicts, an officer, in testing such a supposed dealer, may properly pretend to be an addict, with such”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jones v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.