someone other than the accused facilitated the execution of the scheme, or that an officer appeared to co-operate with him, will not be a defense. (In re Moore, 1924, 70 C.A. 483, 488, 233, P. 805; see also People v. Lanzit, 1925, 70 C.A. 498, 233, P. 816; People v. Rodriguez, 1923, 61 C.A. 69, 214 P. 452; People v Malone, 1931, 117 C.A. 629, 4 P. 2d 287; People v. Makovsky, 1935, 3 C 2d 366, 44 P. 2d 536; People v. Cherry, 1940, 39 C.A. 2d 149, 102 P. 2d 546; 23 Cal. L. Rev. 438; 2 So. Cal. L. Rev. 283, 305; 8 So. Cal. L. Rev. 245; 9 So. Cal. L. Rev. 29). Where there is some evidence to support the claim of entrapment, the defendant is entitled to an instruction on it. (People v. Gallagher, 1930, 107 C.A. 425, 290 P. 504.)"

one

Los Angeles Examiner Sun., Sept. 21, 1952

20 Sec. I, Part A

LAWMEN URGE

FOUR SEX LAWS

SAN BERNARDINO, Sept. 20. -Law enforcement officers from all parts of San Bernardino County, meeting with State Sen. James E. Cunningham of San Bernardino, have urged that the State Legislature pass these four laws to help them in combating increasing sex crimes:

Speed trial of all sex offenders; all sex offenses affecting children under 18 to be handled in juvenile court; establishment of central county files on

offenders and suspects stiff state registration laws and mandatory jail sentences for all persons convicted of sex crimes. Editors:

?

Why in hell are you idiots drawing a lot of attention to us by starting a magazine? Prejudice will fade away all alone if we don't make things worse by fighting it.

Savannah, Georgia

As one suspect on file to another, Savannah's not that far away from San Bernardino, is it?

An Editor

page 22