July 2, 2016 At times, a person can be proven in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have been guilty of a crime yet not be held accountable for that crime. If proven by the defendant, either of two defenses will render the defendant free from sanctions arising out of a finding of guilt. Entrapment Entrapment is a defense to guilt of a criminal offense and is defined by RCW 9A.16.079 which provides that, in any prosecution for a crime, it shall be a defense that the “criminal design originated in the mind of law enforcement officials, or any person acting under their direction, and. . . the actor was lured or induced to commit a crime which the actor had not otherwise intended to commit.” The defense of entrapment must go further than demonstrating that police merely afforded the offender an opportunity to commit a crime. It must demonstrate that the person was not predisposed to committing the crime prior to contact with police or an agent acting in the interest of police and that overzealous activity of police or person acting in the interest of police persuaded and motivated an otherwise innocent and law abiding citizen into committing the crime. This defense has been invoked on many occasions by defendants found guilty in prostitution stings who claim seduction by law enforcement officers or plants. Avoidance of entrapment claims has been a powerful force in shaping tactics used in police stings in recent decades. Duress Duress is a defense to guilt of a criminal offense and is defined by RCW 9A.16.060, and provides that in any prosecution for a crime, it is a defense that the “actor participated in the crime under compulsion by another who by threat or use of force created an apprehension in the mind of the actor that in case of refusal he or she or another would be liable to immediate death or immediate grievous bodily injury.” The statute goes on to stipulate that the apprehension experienced by the actor was reasonable and that the actor would otherwise not have committed the crime if it had not been for the coercion used by the other, threatening party. In a famous 2003 case, an Erie, Pennsylvania pizza delivery man, who was fitted with an inescapable bomb collared around his neck, entered a bank and proceeded to rob the bank. Upon subsequently being apprehended by police, the man claimed that he was a victim acting under duress, was fitted with the bomb collar to gain his compliance, and was forced by an unknown party to commit the act upon threat of detonation of the bomb. The bomb exploded and the man was killed after being stopped by police. Later investigation revealed that the duress was not valid. The man was determined to be complicit with the scheme and the accomplices were identified, prosecuted, and found guilty of several charges. Get Legal Representation If you or a loved one has been accused of a criminal offense and you believe that the crime was committed as a direct result of either entrapment or duress and that in the absence of either, the accused would not have committed the crime, invoke your rights according to protection from Washington criminal statutes. Contact the experienced criminal attorneys at The Nahajski Firm at (206) 621-0500 for a free and confidential initial consultation.