him, and he was also forced to leave the hospital where he had been in residence. I recently represented a school teacher who in all good faith and upon the advice of counsel entered a guilty plea to 650 and onehalf, and ninety days later we had a hearing scheduled for revocation of his teaching credentials and of his real estate license. We had to fight a hundred times harder to save these two licenses than if he had fought the original charge. The particular situation was such that I was able to convince two different hearing boards that the credential and the license should not be revoked; but the case could easily have gone the other way. If you plead guilty to one of the charges of outraging public decency untold damage can result. Your record is checked upon later if you apply for federal or state employment, and it can be checked for many kinds of private employment especially where a bond is necessary. If the check on your record shows 650 and one-half, they will look up what it means, and there it is. The only proper defense is to fight the charge as it comes. Get the best attorney you can and make the best preparation possible and take care of it before other unthought of difficulties arise to haunt you in future years. The city attorneys themselves don't realize what they do when they take these pleas, and I have attempted to inform each of them wherever opportunity has permitted. Some of them are aware of the chaos and heartache that these pleas can cause.

Now, I am often asked what about entrapment. Most of you have heard that there is something called entrapment, and that if the police entrap you that this then is a defense. In virtually every homosexual case, entrapment is a potential defense. Let me give a couple of real cases to best illustrate what entrapment really means. The first case begins a few months after prohibition went into effect. A nice

one

old druggist who ran an old country store was standing behind his counter one day when a guy comes along who obviously needs a drink: he is shaking all over, and he is the type who is an alcoholic. He has to have a drink so he approaches the druggist and says, I've got to have some liquor, can't you give me some? The druggist replies that he can't do it, that it is against the law. But the guy pleads and pleads so convincingly that the old druggist gives in and says, all right, I've got a little alcohol left, but remember only this once. So he sells the guy the liquor, and immediately the guy pulls out his credentials. It's a police officer, and he makes his arrest. Now, let's take another case. A man is engaged in bookmaking— taking bets on horses and ball games and anything else. The man is booking 50 or 60 or 70 bets a day and has been doing it for a long period of time. A police officer hears about it and walks into the man's premises and says that Joe sent him. The man doesn't know the officer and doesn't want to take his bet. They argue a while and finally the officer convinces the man it is all right. The bet is placed, the man takes it, whereupon. credentials are shown and the officer reveals himself and places the man under arrest.

Let us examine these two cases. It will show us what is and what is not entrapment: in the first case, the criminal idea originated in the mind. of the government agent who visited the old druggist. The druggist did not want to sell alcohol. He was definitely reluctant. The last thing he expected to do when the guy came into his store was sell him a bottle of whiskey. In the case of the bookmaker, however, it will be remembered that bookmaking was his business. The only reason why he didn't want to take the bet was that he was afraid of dealing with a stranger. He was afraid he might get caught.