Baltimore sex chat
After a thorough search of my client’s house and computer, the police found exactly none of the things that the detective “knows” through his training, knowledge and experience that Child Preferential Sex Offenders” will have in their possession.
As I said at the beginning of this blog, my first thought upon reading cases similar to this was that the defenses of impossibility and/or entrapment may apply.
Well, according to the Maryland Court of Appeals, the impossibility defense does not apply in this cases and entrapment will be difficult to prove.
More on the law shortly but first, here are the facts of the case: My client had developed the unfortunate habit of spending time on Internet chat sites looking for women to meet for sex.
Although the burden is on the state to establish this predisposition, there is nothing in that chat that would indicate that the police persuaded him to commit the offense.
Moreover, our position is that my client never thought it was a child in the first place, so it will be difficult to argue that he was entrapped into doing something that he never intended to do.
The defense of entrapment is essentially a two question analysis: The first question is did the police directly or indirectly induce the defendant to commit the offense which, in my opinion, the police arguably did here given that the detective “approached” the defendant in an adult chat room and there is no evidence that the defendant was looking for children.