Pretext, Deception and Entrapment in Criminal Investigations

doi:10.1017/9781009038126.009

9 - Pretext, Deception and Entrapment in Criminal Investigations

from Part II - Criminal Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 July 2025

Dominik Brodowski ,

Brenner M. Fissell and

Paul Roberts

Edited by

Kai Ambos ,

Julian Roberts and

Kai Ambos: Affiliation:
Georg August Universität Göttingen
Antony Duff: Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Alexander Heinze: Affiliation:
University of Bremen
Julian Roberts: Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend: Affiliation:
University of Köln

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter analyses the practical and normative challenges of deceptive – and sometimes manipulative – criminal investigations, in the criminal justice systems of the United States, Germany, and England and Wales. With particular emphasis on ‘entrapment’ by state agents and the custodial interrogation of criminal suspects, it describes how the different legal traditions conceive these issues and considers ongoing attempts to regulate them through complex, multi-level legal frameworks. The chapter concludes with comparative reflections on domestic law experiences and their implications for procedural models, legal culture, jurisprudential principles and conceptions of legitimate political authority in criminal justice.

Keywords

deception entrapment fair trial predisposition pretext procedural integrity

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
Volume III
, pp. 305 - 350

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009038126.009 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, R. J., Luttrell, M. and Kreeger, A., ‘Clarifying Entrapment’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 89 (1999), 407–32.CrossRef Google Scholar

American Law Institute, Model Penal Code & Commentaries, American Law Institute (1985).Google Scholar

Ashworth, A., ‘Should the Police Be Allowed to Use Deceptive Practices?’, Law Quarterly Review, 114 (1998), 108–40.Google Scholar

Aziz, S. F., ‘Race, Entrapment, and Manufacturing “Homegrown Terrorism”’, Georgetown Law Journal, 111 (2023), 381–463.Google Scholar

Baldwin, J., ‘Police Interview Techniques: Establishing Truth or Proof?’, British Journal of Criminology, 33 (1993), 325–52.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bezemek, C., ‘Nemo tenetur – Ein grundrechtlicher Aufriss’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtswissenschaft, 3 (2023), 132–42.Google Scholar

Birch, D., ‘Excluding Evidence from Entrapment: What Is a “Fair Cop”?’, Current Legal Problems, 47 (1994), 73–99.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bloom, R. M. and Fentin, D. H., ‘“A More Majestic Conception”: The Importance of Judicial Integrity in Preserving the Exclusionary Rule’, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 13 (2010), 47–80.Google Scholar

Bock, S., ‘Viel Lärm um Nichts? Kritische Überlegungen zum Mehrwert der EU-Richtlinie über die Unschuldsvermutung’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtswissenschaft, 3 (2023), 189–96.Google Scholar

Brodowski, D., Verdeckte technische Überwachungsmaßnahmen, Mohr Siebeck (2016).Google Scholar

Bundesministerium der Justiz, ‘Gesetzes zur Regelung des Einsatzes von Verdeckten Ermittlern und Vertrauenspersonen sowie zur Tatprovokation’ (19 December 2023), available at www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/DE/2023_V-Personen.html.Google Scholar

Celiksoy, E., ‘Overruling “the Salduz Doctrine” in Beuze v Belgium: The ECtHR’s Further Retreat from the Salduz Principles on the Right to Access to Lawyer’, New Journal of European Criminal Law, 10 (2019), 342–62.10.1177/2032284419879228CrossRef Google Scholar

Chevigny, P., Edge of the Knife: Police Violence in the Americas, The New Press (1995).Google Scholar

Choo, A. L.-T., Abuse of Process and Judicial Stays of Criminal Proceedings, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (2008).CrossRef Google Scholar

Choo, A. L.-T. and Nash, S., ‘What’s Wrong with Section 78?’, Criminal Law Review, [1999], 929–40.Google Scholar

College of Policing, ‘Investigation – Investigative Interviewing’, available at www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/investigative-interviewing/#peace-framework.Google Scholar

Damaška, M. R., The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process, Yale University Press (1986).Google Scholar

Dennis, I. H., ‘Miscarriages of Justice and the Law of Confessions: Evidentiary Issues and Solutions’, Public Law, [1993], 291–313.Google Scholar

Diehl, J., Lehberger, R. and Schmid, F., ‘Justizministerium treibt neues V-Mann-Gesetz voran’, SPIEGEL online, 19 July 2023, available at www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/v-leute-justizministerium-treibt-neues-gesetz-fuer-polizei-voran-a-1dd7d0d8-e2cb-4b49-9c57-ec20dcfa3d14.Google Scholar

Diemer, H., ‘§ 136a StPO’, in Barthe, C. and Gericke, J. (eds.), Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung mit GVG, EGGVG und EMRK, 9th edn, C. H. Beck (2023).Google Scholar

Dilloff, A. M., ‘Unraveling Unlawful Entrapment’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 94 (2004), 827–96.Google Scholar

Dixon, D., Law in Policing, Oxford University Press (1997).Google Scholar

Dixon, D., ‘Integrity, Interrogation and Criminal Injustice’, in Hunter, J., Roberts, P., Young, S. N. M. et al. (eds.), The Integrity of Criminal Process, Hart (2016), 75–97.Google Scholar

du Bois-Pedain, A., ‘Participation in Crime’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 94–134.Google Scholar

Duff, A., ‘Authority and Responsibility in International Criminal Law’, in Besson, S. and Tasioulas, J. (eds.), The Philosophy of International Law, Oxford University Press (2010), 589–604.Google Scholar

Dworkin, G., ‘The Serpent Beguiled Me and I Did Eat: Entrapment and the Creation of Crime’, Law and Philosophy, 4 (1985), 17–39.10.1007/BF00208259CrossRef Google Scholar

Dyson, M. and Meyer, F., ‘Structures within Criminal Legal Reasoning’, in Ambos, K., Weigend, T., Duff, A. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues, Cambridge University Press (2022), Vol. II, 13–61.CrossRef Google Scholar

Emsley, C., The English Police: A Political and Social History, 2nd edn, Longman (1996).Google Scholar

Eschelbach, R., ‘§ 136a StPO’, in Satzger, H. and Schluckebier, W. (eds.), Satzger · Schluckebier · Widmaier, Strafprozessordnung. Mit GVG und EMRK. Kommentar, 5th edn, Wolters Kluwer (2020).Google Scholar

Etienne, M. and McAdams, R., ‘Police Deception in Interrogation as a Problem of Procedural Legitimacy’, Texas Tech Law Review, 54 (2021), 21–38.Google Scholar

Flanagan, O., The Geography of Morals, Oxford University Press (2017).Google Scholar

Frampton, T. W., ‘Predisposition and Positivism: The Forgotten Foundations of the Entrapment Doctrine’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 103 (2013), 111–46.Google Scholar

Gudjonsson, G. H., ‘Investigative Interviewing’, in Newburn, T., Williamson, T. and Wright, A. (eds.), Handbook of Criminal Investigation, Willan Publishing (2007), 466–92.Google Scholar

Harris, D. A., ‘“Driving While Black” and All Other Traffic Offenses: The Supreme Court and Pretextual Traffic Stops’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 87 (1997), 544–82.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hodgen, G. G., ‘Resuscitating the Entrapment Defense: A Statutory Approach’, Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems, 55 (2021), 103–43.Google Scholar

Hodgson, J., ‘Hierarchy, Bureaucracy, and Ideology in French Criminal Justice: Some Empirical Observations’, Journal of Law and Society, 29 (2002), 227–57.10.1111/1467-6478.00217CrossRef Google Scholar

Hong, M., ‘Nemo-tenetur-Grundsatz und Menschenwürde: Zum Menschenwürdekern der Selbstbelastungsfreiheit’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtswissenschaft, 3 (2023), 143–5.Google Scholar

Hritz, A. C., ‘“Voluntariness with a Vengeance”: The Coerciveness of Police Lies in Interrogations’, Cornell Law Review, 102 (2017), 487–511.Google Scholar

Hübner, Y., Rechtsstaatswidrig, aber straflos? Nomos (2020).10.5771/9783748908678CrossRef Google Scholar

Jackson, J. D., ‘Responses to Salduz: Procedural Tradition, Change and the Need for Effective Defence’, Modern Law Review, 79 (2016), 987–1018.10.1111/1468-2230.12227CrossRef Google Scholar

Jahn, M., Gazeas, N. and Hübner, Y., ‘Rechtssicherheit beim Einsatz von Vertrauenspersonen und rechtsstaatskonformes Verbot der Tatprovokation: Ein Regelungsvorschlag’, Strafverteidiger, 43 (2023), 414–21.Google Scholar

Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T. et al., ‘Police-Induced Confessions: Risk Factors and Recommendations’, Law & Human Behavior, 34 (2010), 3–38.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kerr, O. S., ‘Four Models of Fourth Amendment Protection’, Stanford Law Review, 60 (2007), 503–51.Google Scholar

King, N. J., Kerr, O. S. and Brensike Primus, E., ‘Conduct of the Police’, in Kamisar, LaFave and Israel’s Criminal Procedure: Investigation, 16th edn, West Academic (2023).Google Scholar

Langer, M., ‘From Legal Transplants to Legal Translations: The Globalization of Plea Bargaining and the Americanization Thesis in Criminal Procedure’, Harvard International Law Journal, 45 (2004), 1–64.Google Scholar

Magid, L., ‘Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?’, Michigan Law Review, 99 (2001), 1168–210.10.2307/1290529CrossRef Google Scholar

Malek, K., ‘Abschied von der Wahrheitssuche: Eröffnungsvortrag zum 35’, Strafverteidigertag (2011), available at https://strafverteidigertag.de/rechtspolitik/grundlagen/abschied-von-der-wahrheitssuche/.Google Scholar

Marcus, P., The Entrapment Defense, 5th edn, LexisNexis (2023).Google Scholar

Marston, G., ‘The United Kingdom’s Part in the Preparation of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950’, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 42 (1993), 796–826.CrossRef Google Scholar

Marx, G. T. and Fijnaut, C. (eds.), Undercover: Police Surveillance in Comparative Perspective, Martinus Nijhoff (1995).Google Scholar

Mawby, R. I., Policing across the World: Issues for the Twenty-First Century, UCL Press (1999).Google Scholar

McAdams, R. H., ‘The Political Economy of Entrapment’, Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 96 (2005), 107–86.Google Scholar

McCartney, C. and Wortley, N., ‘Under the Covers: Covert Policing and Intimate Relationships’, Criminal Law Review, [2018], 137–56.Google Scholar

Menlowe, M. A., ‘Bentham, Self-Incrimination and the Law of Evidence’, Law Quarterly Review, 104 (1988), 286–307.Google Scholar

Mirfield, P., Silence, Confessions and Improperly Obtained Evidence, Oxford University Press (1997).Google Scholar

Müller, A. Th., ‘Die Richtlinie (EU) 2016/343 und der nemo-tenetur-Grundsatz im Unionsrecht’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtswissenschaft, 3 (2023), 180–8.Google Scholar

Murphy, B. and Anderson, J., ‘Confessions to Mr Big: A New Rule of Evidence?’, International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 20 (2016), 29–48.10.1177/1365712715613485CrossRef Google Scholar

Murschetz, V., ‘Der nemo-tenetur-Grundsatz im US-amerikanischen Recht’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtswissenschaft, 3 (2023), 164–8.Google Scholar

Norris, J. J., ‘Accounting for the (Almost Complete) Failure of the Entrapment Defense in Post-9/11 US Terrorism Cases’, Law & Social Inquiry, 45 (2020), 194–225.10.1017/lsi.2019.61CrossRef Google Scholar

Ognall, H., A Life of Crime: The Memoirs of a High Court Judge, William Collins (2017).Google Scholar

Ormerod, D., ‘Recent Developments in Entrapment’, Covert Policing Review (2006), 65–86.Google Scholar

Ormerod, D. and Birch, D., ‘The Evolution of the Discretionary Exclusion of Evidence’, Criminal Law Review, [2004], 767–88.Google Scholar

Ormerod, D. and Roberts, A., ‘The Trouble with Teixeira: Developing a Principled Approach to Entrapment’, International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 6 (2002), 38–61.10.1177/136571270200600103CrossRef Google Scholar

Øyen, Ø., Straffeprosess, 3rd edn, Fagbokforlaget (2022).Google Scholar

Poyser, S. and Milne, R. J., ‘No Grounds for Complacency and Plenty for Continued Vigilance: Miscarriages of Justice as Drivers for Research on Reforming the Investigative Interviewing Process’, Police Journal, 88 (2015), 265–80.10.1177/0032258X15598951CrossRef Google Scholar

Quirk, H., The Rise and Fall of the Right of Silence, Routledge (2017).Google Scholar

Redmayne, M., ‘Exploring Entrapment’, in Zedner, L. and Roberts, J. V. (eds.), Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press (2012), 157–70.Google Scholar

Reiner, R., ‘The Organization and Accountability of the Police’, in McConville, M. and Wilson, G. (eds.), The Handbook of the Criminal Justice Process, Oxford University Press (2002), 21–42.Google Scholar

Roberts, P., ‘Normative Evolution in Evidentiary Exclusion: Coercion, Deception and the Right to a Fair Trial’, in Roberts, P. and Hunter, J. (eds.), Criminal Evidence and Human Rights, Hart (2012), 163–93.Google Scholar

Rogall, K., ‘§ 136a StPO’, in Wolter, J. and Deiters, M. (eds.), SK-StPO. Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung. Mit GVG und EMRK, Vol. II: §§ 94–136a StPO, 6th edn, Wolters Kluwer (2023).Google Scholar

Roiphe, R., ‘The Serpent Beguiled Me: A History of the Entrapment Defense’, Seton Hall Law Review, 33 (2003), 257–302.Google Scholar

Roth, J. A., ‘The Anomaly of Entrapment’, Washington University Law Review, 91 (2014), 979–1034.Google Scholar

Schuhr, J., ‘§ 136a StPO’, in Kudlich, H. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, Vol. I: §§ 1–150 StPO, 2nd edn, C. H. Beck (2023).Google Scholar

Seidman, L. M., ‘The Supreme Court, Entrapment, and Our Criminal Justice Dilemma’, Supreme Court Review, [1981], 111–55.10.1086/scr.1981.3109542CrossRef Google Scholar

Simester, A. P., Fundamentals of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2021).CrossRef Google Scholar

Simon-Kerr, J., ‘Public Trust and Police Deception’, Northeastern University Law Review, 11 (2019), 625–93.Google Scholar

Slobogin, C., ‘Deceit, Pretext, and Trickery: Investigative Lies by the Police’, Oregon Law Review, 76 (1997), 775–816.Google Scholar

Soukara, S., Bull, R., Vrij, A. et al., ‘What Really Happens in Police Interviews of Suspects? Tactics and Confessions’, Psychology, Crime & Law, 15 (2009), 493–506.10.1080/10683160802201827CrossRef Google Scholar

Staffler, L., ‘Der nemo-tenetur-Grundsatz im schweizerischen Strafverfahrensrecht – für natürliche und juristische Personen’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtswissenschaft, 3 (2023), 169–75.Google Scholar

Stuntz, W. J., ‘Lawyers, Deception, and Evidence Gathering’, Virginia Law Review, 79 (1993), 1903–56.10.2307/1073476CrossRef Google Scholar

Sukumar, D., Hodgson, J. S. and Wade, K. A., ‘Behind Closed Doors: Live Observations of Current Police Station Disclosure Practices and Lawyer–Client Consultations’, Criminal Law Review, [2016], 900–14.Google Scholar

Summers, R. S., ‘Evaluating and Improving Legal Processes: A Plea for “Process Values”’, Cornell Law Review, 60 (1974), 1–52.Google Scholar

Thaman, S. C. and Brodowski, D., ‘Exclusion or Non-Use of Illegally Gathered Evidence in the Criminal Process: Focus on Common Law and German Approaches’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 428–62.Google Scholar

Turner, J. I. and Weigend, T., ‘Negotiated Case Dispositions in Germany, England and the United States’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 389–427.Google Scholar

van Kessel, G., ‘Adversary Excesses in the American Criminal Trial’, Notre Dame Law Review, 67 (1992), 403–551.Google Scholar

Venier, A., ‘Verbotener Zwang zur Selbstbelastung, Aussagefreiheit und angemessene Verteidigung aus der Sicht des österreichischen Strafprozessrechts’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtswissenschaft, 3 (2023), 176–9.Google Scholar

Volk, K. and Engländer, A., Grundkurs StPO, 10th edn, C. H. Beck (2021).Google Scholar

Waldron, J., ‘Security and Liberty: The Image of Balance’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 11 (2003), 191–210.Google Scholar

Walker, C., ‘Miscarriages of Justice in Principle and Practice’, in Walker, C. and Starmer, K. (eds.), Miscarriages of Justice: A Review of Justice in Error, Blackstone (1999), 31–62.Google Scholar

Weigend, T., ‘Should We Search for the Truth, and Who Should Do It?’, North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation, 36 (2011), 389–415.Google Scholar

Wilder, M., ‘“Lizzie”: The Yard’s Undercover Love-Bait’, Daily Mail, 15 September 1994.Google Scholar

Winn, P., ‘Katz and the Origins of the “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” Test’, McGeorge Law Review, 40 (2009), 1–12.Google Scholar

Young, D., ‘Unnecessary Evil: Police Lying in Interrogations’, Connecticut Law Review, 28 (1996), 425–78.Google Scholar

Zedner, L. and Stuckenberg, C.-F., ‘Due Process’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 304–42.Google Scholar

Zupancic, B. M., ‘The Crown and the Criminal: The Privilege against Self-Incrimination: Towards General Principles of Criminal Procedure’, Nottingham Law Journal, 5 (1996), 32–55.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA

The PDF of this book complies with version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved user experiences and achieves the intermediate (AA) level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.