So here is your defense against entrapment. If the idea of the offense originally belonged to the police officer, and you reluctantly were talked into it, why then, you have a proper defense of entrapment. But if you are a gentleman hanging around a public toilet, and if the police officer should strike up a conversation leading to one of the magic words or an overt act, it would not be entrapment. This definition creates a problem. How does one know what is in another person's mind? Was the suspect at the toilet for a legitimate purpose or was he there to make a pickup? Here we run into the problem of the unbiased judge or jury. If it happens that you are a man with 5 or 6 children and that you have never been arrested before, and, perhaps, you have a witness of your own, or there are other circumstances in your favor, you may well raise the defense of entrapment. And you may win. But if you are a single man with a record of arrest and it appears that you may have been at the scene for no good purpose, as it were, then the defense of entrapment will get you no place. In this state there have been mighty few cases in which the defense of entrapment was raised and was successful. The appellate records show failure after failure. Still, in many cases this type of defense should be raised but isn't, simply because persons are afraid of the notoriety that will attend a public trial. The defendant does not want to have to tell what went on. Few persons could stand the embarrassment. Public prosecutors seldom object in these cases to a clearing of the courtroom even though in municipal court matters there are few spectators frequently no more than 2 or 3. Frank parts of any discussion will be held at the bench or in chambers and won't even appear on record, and if they should be placed on the record, no one will read it because the record will never be trans-

1

scribed unless an appeal is taken. So persons should not be afraid of a court trial.

The failure of persons to fight their cases has given the police a feeling of confidence in these matters. And as I have pointed out, it is the duty of each citizen to fight any unlawful or improper infringement on his liberty. The police have become more and more emboldened. Many lawyers have discussed this problem with district attorneys and police officers. Only a few days ago I talked to an old sergeant of detectives. He had worked vice for many years. I said, -, you know that many of your officers who wouldn't think of framing anybody for a burglary or a robbery or some other kind of charge, will on morals cases, twist the facts and say the magic words to get a conviction, don't you? The sergeant nodded his head in agreement. He knew what I was talking about all right. My schoolteacher case was very like that.

or

So often the circumstances depend on whether the vice officer speaks the words and you repeat them whether you first utter the words. More depends on how the meaning can be interpreted later. But, in some way, as it frequently turns out, when the vice officer writes his report, it all comes out that you were the aggressor -that it was your idea-and the report will be damaging. Customarily the report might start out, "While at the intersection of Hollywood Blvd. and Las Palmas, and while investigating alleged homosexual activities.. which type of beginning immediately alerts the judge to the idea that the area you were found in is a hot-bed of activity. So I repeat that when a person has been arrested for one of the charges mentioned here he has a duty not only to himself but to all others who may have a similar problem, not to lie down and just take it. If the person is honestly being abused, if the facts are not as represented, he must

99

23