In the case of United States v. Russel, which approach to determine entrapment did the U.S. Supreme Court endorse?

• A. The objective approach
• B. The subjective approach
• C. The combined approach
• D. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to endorse any particular method

Answer: (B)

Entrapment defenses hinge on whether government conduct induced a crime or simply gave someone an opportunity. There are two ways courts phrase this: an objective approach asks if the government's actions would have enticed a reasonable person to commit the offense, while a subjective approach asks whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime before any government involvement. United States v. Russell endorses the subjective approach. The Court said the crucial question is the defendant’s own predisposition to commit the offense; if the person was already inclined to offend, government inducement doesn’t make it entrapment. If the defendant was not predisposed and the government’s actions led him to commit the crime, entrapment can be a valid defense. So the correct understanding is that entrapment is determined by the defendant’s predisposition, not solely by the government’s conduct.