title: United States v. Russell

abstract: United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973), is a Supreme Court case dealing with the entrapment defense. The court split 5-4 and maintained the subjective theory that had first been adopted in Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932). Although an undercover federal agent had helped procure a key ingredient for an illegal methamphetamine manufacturing operation, and assisted in the process, the Court followed its earlier rulings on the subject and found that the defendant had a predisposition to make and sell illegal drugs whether he worked with the government or not. Russell had admitted to that during his appeal, but he and his lawyers argued that the entrapment defense should focus entirely on what the federal operatives did and not his state of mind. They asked the Court to overrule two previous cases that had established this "subjective" test in favor of the "objective" one they advocated. It declined to do so. But Justice William Rehnquist pondered the possibility that what has become known as "outrageous government conduct" might force a judicial hand in an entrapment case regardless of any specific rights that had been or not been violated. While he backed away from it in a later opinion, his words have become a rallying point for advocates of the objective entrapment standard.

text:
# United States v. Russell

***United States v. Russell***, 411 U.S. 423 (1973), is a Supreme Court case dealing with the entrapment defense. The court split 5-4 and maintained the subjective theory that had first been adopted in *Sorrells v. United States*, 287 U.S. 435 (1932). Although an undercover federal agent had helped procure a key ingredient for an illegal methamphetamine manufacturing operation, and assisted in the process, the Court followed its earlier rulings on the subject and found that the defendant had a predisposition to make and sell illegal drugs whether he worked with the government or not.

Russell had admitted to that during his appeal, but he and his lawyers argued that the entrapment defense should focus entirely on what the federal operatives did and not his state of mind. They asked the Court to overrule two previous cases that had established this "subjective" test in favor of the "objective" one they advocated. It declined to do so. But Justice William Rehnquist pondered the possibility that what has become known as "outrageous government conduct" might force a judicial hand in an entrapment case regardless of any specific rights that had been or not been violated. While he backed away from it in a later opinion, his words have become a rallying point for advocates of the objective entrapment standard.

## Background of the case

In late 1969, Joe Shapiro, an agent for the federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (later to become part of the Drug Enforcement Administration), was assigned to locate an illegal methamphetamine ("meth") production lab believed to be on Whidbey Island in Washington. His investigation led him to Richard Russell and John and Patrick Connolly, the lab's proprietors. On December 7, they met and he represented himself to them as a member of a group which wanted to control meth production and distribution in the region. He offered to supply them with phenyl-2-propanone(P2P), a necessary ingredient in meth manufacture which had become difficult to obtain, in return for half of the resulting output. He insisted beforehand on being shown the lab and given a sample of what they could produce.

John Connolly gave Shapiro from his most recent output, and Patrick Connolly said they had been able to make three pounds of meth since May of that year. Shapiro also observed an empty P2P bottle at the house. Two days later, he returned with 100 g of P2P. While he mostly watched as the trio made their meth, at one point, according to later court testimony, he and Russell helped pick up some pieces of dropped aluminum foil and put it into a flask. Patrick Connolly finished the rest of the process, and Shapiro stopped by the next morning to pick up his half of the meth. He also bought a portion of the remainder for $60.

A month later, he returned and asked Connolly if he was still interested in doing business. Connolly said yes, but that he would not be able to sell him any as he had gotten some bottles of P2P elsewhere and was busy making another batch. Three days later, Shapiro returned with a search warrant. Among other items, he seized two bottles of P2P, one an empty 500-g container, the other a partially full 100-g one (not the one he had originally given them). All three were arrested and charged with five separate violations of federal drug laws.

## Lower courts

### Trial

John Connolly did not appear. His brother and Russell were found guilty on all five counts. Both raised the entrapment defense, arguing that while they would have made and sold meth regardless of Shapiro's involvement, his supplying of an ingredient that, while legal, was difficult to get due to the bureau's own efforts to dissuade chemical companies from selling it and requiring that those who did sell only to buyers with a valid manufacturer's license, constituted entrapment as a matter of law.

#### Issue

In *Sorrells v. United States*, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), the case where it had first recognized entrapment as a valid defense, and *Sherman v. United States*, 356 U.S. 369 (1958), another entrapment case involving an undercover drug investigation, the Court had chosen to ground entrapment in the question of whether it could be established that the defendant had a "predisposition" to commit the crime absent government involvement. This has become known as the "subjective" test of entrapment since it involves evaluating the defendant's state of mind. It was somewhat controversial in both decisions, even though they were unanimous in overturning the convictions, because concurrences in both cases had criticized it sharply and called instead for an "objective" standard which concentrated instead on the behavior of law enforcement.

Connolly and Russell both argued that, in their cases, it was the government agent's assistance in their enterprise — and only that — which had made the specific offenses they were tried for possible. The jury rejected that argument, following instead the subjective entrapment standard, holding that they were predisposed to commit the crime in any event.

### Appeal

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed that the conduct of the government agents trumped any inclination to make and deal meth and overturned the conviction. Prosecutors petitioned the Supreme Court for *certiorari*.

## Decision

For the first time in an entrapment case, not only did the Court uphold a conviction, but split its decision.

### Majority

After reviewing the case and Russell's arguments for adopting a new standard for entrapment, Rehnquist first pointed to practical problems specific to the case:

> Even if we were to surmount the difficulties attending the notion that due process of law can be embodied in fixed rules, and those attending respondent's particular formulation, the rule he proposes would not appear to be of significant benefit to him. For, on the record presented, it appears that he cannot fit within the terms of the very rule he proposes.
>
> The record discloses that although the propanone was difficult to obtain, it was by no means impossible. The defendants admitted making the drug both before and after those batches made with the propanone supplied by Shapiro. Shapiro testified that he saw an empty bottle labeled phenyl-2-propanone on his first visit to the laboratory on December 7, 1969. And when the laboratory was searched pursuant to a search warrant on January 10, 1970, two additional bottles labeled phenyl-2-propanone were seized. Thus, the facts in the record amply demonstrate that the propanone used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine not only could have been obtained without the intervention of Shapiro but was in fact obtained by these defendants.

The next sentence has reverberated around discourse on the entrapment defense ever since: "...we may some day be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction." But, the justice continued, "the instant case is distinctly not of that breed". Later, he acknowledged the possibility of "overzealous law enforcement".

He went on to reject the notion of changing the entrapment standard, saying the Court had already reaffirmed the subjective test in *Sherman* and saw no reason to change now. He reiterated previous justices' argument against it from those decisions, and rapped the lower court: "We think that the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case quite unnecessarily introduces an unmanageably subjective standard which is contrary to the holdings of this Court in *Sorrells* and *Sherman* ... \[T\]here are circumstances when the use of deceit is the only practicable law enforcement technique available. It is only when the Government's deception actually implants the criminal design in the mind of the defendant that the defense of entrapment comes into play."

### Dissents

#### Douglas

"In my view, the fact that the chemical ingredient supplied by the federal agent might have been obtained from other sources is quite irrelevant", replied Justice William O. Douglas. "Supplying the chemical ingredient used in the manufacture of this batch of 'speed' made the United States an active participant in the unlawful activity". He pointed to an appellate decision that had thrown out a counterfeiting conviction where the undercover Secret Service had supplied the paper and ink.

He insisted no conviction in such a case should be allowed. "Federal agents play a debased role when they become the instigators of the crime, or partners in its commission, or the creative brain behind the illegal scheme. That is what the federal agent did here when he furnished the accused with one of the chemical ingredients needed to manufacture the unlawful drug."

William Brennan signed this opinion as well.

#### Stewart

Potter Stewart sought to make an argument for the objective test, calling it "the only one truly consistent with the underlying rationale of the defense". Like the concurrences in the earlier two opinions, he argued that a judge, not a jury, should decide whether law enforcement crossed the line. He rejected the idea that the defendant's conduct or state of mind had any bearing, since arguing entrapment by its very nature concedes commission of the act: "He may not have originated the precise plan or the precise details, but he was "predisposed" in the sense that he has proved to be quite capable of committing the crime".

Like Owen Roberts in *Sorrells*, he expressed concern that a predisposition test would needlessly deter defendants who might otherwise have a case based on the behavior of the government agents involved from doing so, since it would allow the prosecution to bring up prior bad acts that would be prejudicial to the jury and otherwise inadmissible.

> Stated another way, this subjective test means that the Government is permitted to entrap a person with a criminal record or bad reputation, and then to prosecute him for the manufactured crime, confident that his record or reputation itself will be enough to show that he was predisposed to commit the offense anyway ... In my view, a person's alleged "predisposition" to crime should not expose him to government participation in the criminal transaction that would be otherwise unlawful.

He next turned to the specifics of the case. Like Douglas, he argued that the government's supplying the propanone, a chemical made scarce but not illegal by its own efforts, and then turning around and prosecuting Russell and the Connollys for the methamphetamine made with that propanone, and *only* that batch, was entrapment no matter how predisposed the three were or whether they were able to obtain propanone from other sources.

Brennan and Thurgood Marshall joined Stewart.

## Subsequent jurisprudence

* *Hampton v. United States*, 452 U.S. 484 (1976). Defendant's belief that he and government informant were selling legal substance and claiming it to be heroin did not overcome evidence showing predisposition to commit crime. Rehnquist backs away slightly from "outrageous government conduct" here, maintaining that defendants must show a specific violation of constitutional rights or due process.
* *Jacobson v. United States*, 504 U.S. 530 (1992). Prior acts by defendant later made illegal but legal at the time do not demonstrate predisposition *per se*; prosecution must show beyond reasonable doubt that defendant was predisposed to commit crime prior to any contact by government agents.

## InfoBox

| United States v. Russell | |
| --- | --- |
| Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued February 27, 1973
Decided April 24, 1973 | |
| Full case name | *United States v. Richard Russell* |
| Citations | 411 U.S. 423 (*more*)93 S. Ct. 1637; 36 L. Ed. 2d 366; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 79 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; conviction reversed, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 459 F.2d 671 (1972); *certiorari* to the 9th Circuit granted, 409 U.S. 911 (1972). |
| Subsequent | Conviction affirmed |
| Holding | |
| Government agent's active participation in criminal conspiracy was not entrapment. | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice Warren E. Burger  Associate Justices William O. Douglas **·**  William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart **·**  Byron White
Thurgood Marshall **·**  Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. **·**  William Rehnquist | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by Burger, White, Blackmun, Powell |
| Dissent | Douglas, joined by Brennan |
| Dissent | Stewart, joined by Brennan, Marshall |
| Laws applied | |
| Existing entrapment jurisprudence | |


title: Mikko Vainonen

abstract: Mikko Vainonen is a Finnish professional ice hockey defenceman who was last under contract with Glasgow Clan in the Elite Ice Hockey League (EIHL).

text:
# Mikko Vainonen

**Mikko Vainonen** (born 11 April 1994) is a Finnish professional ice hockey defenceman who was last under contract with Glasgow Clan in the Elite Ice Hockey League (EIHL).

## Early life

Mikko Vainonen was a hard working defenceman in his childhood. He played a lot of floorball with his friends in residential Helsinki.

## Playing career

He made his professional debut playing with HIFK of the SM-liiga during the 2011–12 SM-liiga season. He was selected in the fourth-round, 118th overall, of the 2012 NHL Entry Draft by the Nashville Predators. In the following season and in pursuit of his NHL ambition, he moved to North America to play major junior after he was drafted in the 2012 CHL import draft in the 1st round, 6th overall by the Kingston Frontenacs of the Ontario Hockey League.

On 24 May 2013, he was signed to a three-year entry-level contract with the Nashville Predators. Vainonen split time between Nashville's farm teams the Milwaukee Admirals of the American Hockey League and the Cincinnati Cyclones of the ECHL over the next two seasons, before being loaned to Liiga's SaiPa to finish the 2014–15 season.

At the start of the 2015–16 NHL season Vainonen and Nashville agreed to mutually terminate his contract, allowing him to seek employment elsewhere. He returned to his native Finland, coming to terms with Ässät Pori of the top tier Liiga.

After parts of two seasons with German club, Krefeld Pinguine of the Deutsche Eishockey Liga, Vainonen returned again to the Liiga, securing a one-year deal with his fourth Finnish club, Vaasan Sport, on 29 March 2018.

On June 19, 2019, Vainonen opted to continue in the EBEL agreeing to a one-year contract with the Dornbirn Bulldogs.

In a COVID-19 affected 2020–21 season, Vainonen played for Orli Znojmo, HC Frýdek-Místek and Italian side SG Cortina.

In August 2021, Vainonen agreed terms with Scottish EIHL side Glasgow Clan for the 2021–22 season.

## Career statistics

### Regular season and playoffs

|  | | |  | Regular season | | | | |  | Playoffs | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Season | Team | League | | GP |  |  | Pts | PIM | | GP | G | A | Pts | PIM |
| 2011–12 | HIFK | Liiga | | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2012–13 | Kingston Frontenacs | OHL | | 55 | 4 | 18 | 22 | 42 | | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| 2013–14 | Kingston Frontenacs | OHL | | 57 | 4 | 14 | 18 | 73 | | 7 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 8 |
| 2013–14 | Milwaukee Admirals | AHL | | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2014–15 | Cincinnati Cyclones | ECHL | | 31 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 16 | |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2014–15 | SaiPa | Liiga | | 19 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 14 | | 7 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 33 |
| 2015–16 | Ässät | Liiga | | 39 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 63 | |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2016–17 | Ässät | Liiga | | 15 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2016–17 | Krefeld Pinguine | DEL | | 28 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 34 | |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2017–18 | Krefeld Pinguine | DEL | | 44 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 45 | |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2018–19 | Vaasan Sport | Liiga | | 11 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 18 | |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2018–19 | Orli Znojmo | EBEL | | 28 | 6 | 11 | 17 | 18 | | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 12 |
| 2019–20 | Dornbirn Bulldogs | EBEL | | 50 | 3 | 10 | 13 | 38 | |  |  |  |  |  |
|| |
| 2020–21 | Orli Znojmo | Czech 2.Liga | | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2020–21 | HC Frýdek-Místek | Chance Liga | | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | |  |  |  |  |  |
|| |
| 2020–21 | SG Cortina | AlpsHL | | 19 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 35 | | 5 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| 2020–21 | SG Cortina | Italy | | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2021–22 | Glasgow Clan | EIHL | | 44 | 3 | 9 | 12 | 46 | |  |  |  |  |  |
| Liiga totals | | | | 92 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 103 | | 7 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 33 |

| Medal record | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Representing  Finland | | |
| Ice hockey | | |
| World Junior Championships | | |
|  | 2014 Malmö |  |

### International

| Year | Team | Event | Result |  | GP | G | A | Pts | PIM |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2011 | Finland | U17 | 7th | | 5 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 10 |
| 2012 | Finland | WJC18 | 4th | | 7 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 8 |
| 2014 | Finland | WJC |  | | 7 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Junior totals | | | | | 19 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 22 |

## InfoBox

| Mikko Vainonen | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Born | (1994-04-11) 11 April 1994
Helsinki, Finland | | |
| Height | 6 ft 3 in (191 cm) | | |
| Weight | 222 lb (101 kg; 15 st 12 lb) | | |
| Position | Defence | | |
| Shoots | Left | | |
| team
Former teams | *Free Agent*
HIFK
Milwaukee Admirals
SaiPa
Ässät Pori
Krefeld Pinguine
Vaasan Sport
Orli Znojmo
Dornbirn Bulldogs
HC Frýdek-Místek
SG Cortina
Glasgow Clan | | |
| NHL draft | 118th overall, 2012
Nashville Predators | | |
| Playing career | 2011present | | |


title: Qaraməmmədli, Gadabay

abstract: Qaraməmmədli is a village and municipality in the Gadabay Rayon of Azerbaijan. It has a population of 1,491. The municipality consists of the villages of Qaraməmmədli, Dikdaş, and Kəsəmən.

text:
# Qaraməmmədli, Gadabay

**Qaraməmmədli** (also, **Karamamedli**) is a village and municipality in the Gadabay Rayon of Azerbaijan. It has a population of 1,491. The municipality consists of the villages of Qaraməmmədli, Dikdaş, and Kəsəmən.

## InfoBox

| Qaraməmmədli | |
| --- | --- |
| Municipality | |
| Qaraməmmədli | |
| Coordinates: 40°36′N 45°39′E / 40.600°N 45.650°E / 40.600; 45.650 | |
| Country | Azerbaijan |
| Rayon | Gadabay |
| Population | |
| Total | 1,491 |
| Time zone | UTC+4 (AZT) |
| Summer (DST) | UTC+5 (AZT) |


title: Fogelstad

abstract: Fogelstad is a manor house and former seat farm in Södermanland, Sweden. The seat farm was acquired by August Tamm in the late 19th century, where he built what is today Fogelstad manor house. Fogelstad has since been associated with Tamm's daughter, women's rights activist Elisabeth Tamm who was born at Fogelstad, and was one of the first women in parliament.

text:
# Fogelstad

**Fogelstad** is a manor house and former seat farm in Södermanland, Sweden. The seat farm was acquired by August Tamm in the late 19th century, where he built what is today Fogelstad manor house. Fogelstad has since been associated with Tamm's daughter, women's rights activist Elisabeth Tamm who was born at Fogelstad, and was one of the first women in parliament.

## Bibliography

* Söderberg, Bengt G. (1968). *Slott och herresäten i Sverige – Södermanland 2*. Malmö: Allhems Förlag.

## Further reading

59°09′04″N 16°05′29″E / 59.15111°N 16.09139°E / 59.15111; 16.09139

## InfoBox

| Fogelstad | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
|  | |
| General information | |
| Country | Sweden |
| Completed | 1883 |
| Design and construction | |
| Architect(s) | Emil Victor Langlet |


title: Welford and Kilworth railway station

abstract: Welford and Kilworth railway station was a railway station serving Welford and the villages of North Kilworth and South Kilworth in Leicestershire, England. It was opened as Welford on the Rugby and Stamford Railway in 1850. Parliamentary approval was gained in 1846 by the directors of the London and Birmingham Railway for a branch from Rugby to the Syston and Peterborough Railway near Stamford. In the same year the company became part of the London and North Western Railway. The section from Rugby to Market Harborough, which included Welford, opened in 1850. Originally single track, it was doubled at the end of 1878. Originally the plan had been to build a station at Husbands Bosworth but due to objections it was situated a couple of miles westward near the village of North Kilworth. Originally, the station was named "Welford" after the larger village of that name two and a half miles further south. Later the name "Lutterworth" was added in an attempt to attract custom from that town even though it was some six miles from the station. The original station was built - as was normal at that time - at ground level. Later, when a platform was added the building's windowsill facing the platform was at ankle level. This original building was of brick, but a variety of additions and extensions in different materials and styles were added over the years. A cottage was built on the opposite side of the line near to the road crossing and the box. Consequently, the signal box had to be high enough to give a view over it. There were two sidings on the up side behind the station building, with a loading dock and goods shed, and, in the opposite direction, beside the up line there were two long sidings. On the other side of the road crossing towards Stamford a further siding catered for a dairy. A milk train would arrive from Rugby at about 3.30 in the morning, returning empty at 5.00 a.m. Welford also proved handy for parking defective wagons. At grouping in 1923 it became part of the London Midland and Scottish Railway. The station was closed on the sixth of June 1966 and all trackwork lifted shortly afterwards. Although the main station buildings were demolished, the 1878 built down platform shelter is preserved at the Electric Railway Museum, Warwickshire. There is still a Station Road and the trackbed can still be traced crossing the A4304 road.

text:
# Welford and Kilworth railway station

**Welford and Kilworth railway station** was a railway station serving Welford and the villages of North Kilworth and South Kilworth in Leicestershire, England. It was opened as **Welford** on the Rugby and Stamford Railway in 1850.

Parliamentary approval was gained in 1846 by the directors of the London and Birmingham Railway for a branch from Rugby to the Syston and Peterborough Railway near Stamford. In the same year the company became part of the London and North Western Railway. The section from Rugby to Market Harborough, which included Welford, opened in 1850. Originally single track, it was doubled at the end of 1878.

Originally the plan had been to build a station at Husbands Bosworth but due to objections it was situated a couple of miles westward near the village of North Kilworth. Originally, the station was named "Welford" after the larger village of that name two and a half miles further south. Later the name "Lutterworth" was added in an attempt to attract custom from that town even though it was some six miles from the station.

The original station was built - as was normal at that time - at ground level. Later, when a platform was added the building's windowsill facing the platform was at ankle level. This original building was of brick, but a variety of additions and extensions in different materials and styles were added over the years.

A cottage was built on the opposite side of the line near to the road crossing and the box. Consequently, the signal box had to be high enough to give a view over it. There were two sidings on the up side behind the station building, with a loading dock and goods shed, and, in the opposite direction, beside the up line there were two long sidings. On the other side of the road crossing towards Stamford a further siding catered for a dairy. A milk train would arrive from Rugby at about 3.30 in the morning, returning empty at 5.00 a.m. Welford also proved handy for parking defective wagons.

At grouping in 1923 it became part of the London Midland and Scottish Railway. The station was closed on the sixth of June 1966 and all trackwork lifted shortly afterwards. Although the main station buildings were demolished, the 1878 built down platform shelter is preserved at the Electric Railway Museum, Warwickshire. There is still a Station Road and the trackbed can still be traced crossing the A4304 road.

| Preceding station |  | Disused railways |  | Following station |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Yelvertoft and Stanford Park
Line and station closed |  | London and North Western Railway
Rugby to Peterborough Line |  | Theddingworth
Line and station closed |

52°26′48″N 1°04′58″W / 52.4468°N 1.0827°W / 52.4468; -1.0827

## InfoBox

| Welford and Kilworth | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
| General information | |
| Location | North Kilworth, Leicestershire
England |
| Platforms | 2 |
| Other information | |
| Status | Disused |
| History | |
| Original company | London and North Western Railway |
| Post-grouping | London, Midland and Scottish Railway |
| Key dates | |
| 1 May 1850 | Station opens as Welford |
| May 1853 | renamed Welford, Kilworth |
| April 1855 | renamed Welford and Kilworth |
| 1 May 1897 | renamed Welford and Lutterworth |
| 13 January 1913 | renamed Welford and Kilworth |
| 6 Jun 1966 | Station closed |
|  | |
|  | |
|  | |