Wait, that makes no sense. He “agreed” in order to get an admission of guilt, so he’d had evidence to arrest Synthcore
Wouldn’t this make any sting operation illegal?
The person getting charged with conspiracy in this scenario is Dr. S, not the undercover cop. The question is, if there’s a conspiracy of two people, and one is undercover/faking it, is the other still a conspirator?
I think the question is whether the cop is guilty of conspiracy. Oh right, we never have crooked cops. :-)
I think the question is, is this entrapment?
no, because Dr. S intended to commit the crime. it’s only entrapment if the cops get someone to commit a crime that they would never have engaged in otherwise.
i.e. the cops can’t threaten to kill your family unless you burgle a macguffin, and then arrest you for burgling said macguffin. you didn’t even know about the macguffin prior to being approached by the cops, and would never have agreed to it if not for the threat against your family.
How does this square with the “overt act” rule mentioned several pages ago? Surely simply standing there listening to the agent talk (“get the details”) is not such an act, and nothing the agent does can qualify as the agent is not a true conspirator. So where’s the act? Or is that rule just dispensed with for sting operations?