## Facts

- DEA agents conducted an undercover heroin operation in St. Louis, Missouri, in February 1974.
- Charles Hampton (also known as Byers) knew a government informant, Jules Hutton, who arranged two controlled sales to undercover agents on February 25 and 26, 1974.
- The government’s evidence was that Hampton said he could obtain heroin and sold heroin to undercover agents in two transactions.
- Hampton claimed Hutton supplied the heroin and told him it was non-narcotic, and argued that government involvement in providing the contraband required acquittal.
- At trial, Hampton conceded he was predisposed to sell drugs but argued the government’s alleged supply of the heroin was so improper that conviction should be barred.
- A jury convicted Hampton of two counts of distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); he received suspended five-year sentences on each count.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant who concedes predisposition may claim entrapment when the contraband allegedly originated with a government informant.
2. Whether the government’s alleged conduct in supplying the heroin and arranging sales is so improper that the Due Process Clause bars prosecution and conviction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed Hampton’s conviction.
- A plurality held that when the defendant is predisposed to commit the offense, entrapment is unavailable even if a government informant supplied the drugs.
- The plurality also rejected a separate due process bar in these circumstances, reasoning that predisposition defeats the constitutional claim on these facts.
- A concurring opinion agreed the conviction should stand under existing precedent but stated that due process (or supervisory authority) could bar conviction in an extreme case of truly outrageous law-enforcement conduct; that threshold was not met here.
- A dissent would have found a due process violation where the government allegedly supplied the contraband and orchestrated the offense, and favored an objective entrapment approach focused on official conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Federal entrapment doctrine applies a subjective test centered on whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime.
- When a defendant is predisposed, entrapment is not established merely because the government (including an informant) provided an opportunity or assistance, including supplying contraband.
- A narrow due process limitation based on outrageous government conduct was not applied on these facts; a majority did not find conduct sufficiently extreme to bar prosecution.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Hampton’s heroin distribution convictions, ruling that his admitted predisposition foreclosed an entrapment defense despite allegations that an informant supplied the drugs, and that the government’s involvement did not, on this record, violate due process.


Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976)