Gary E. Heitman Case Summary

The court case of State of Nebraska v. Gary E. Heitman deals with the conviction of Heitman on charges of criminal conspiracy to commit first degree sexual assault on a minor. “Heitman contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict and that he was entrapped” (Heitman p.1) while the court concluded that “there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction” (Heitman p.1) and “further determined that the district court was not clearly wrong in finding that Heitman was predisposed to commit the crime and that thus, the district court was correct in rejecting his entrapment defense.” (Heitman p.1). I agree with the courts rejection of the entrapment defense based upon things discussed in other entrapment cases and ideas brought up by

utilitarian and retributivist beliefs.
Before one can analyze if State v. Heitman involves entrapment, we first should further look into the background of this trial and define entrapment. The incident began on June 20,1998, when Gary Heitman, age 53, went to the drive-thru of a Bronco’s restaurant in Nebraska and gave an envelope containing a $100 bill, three condoms, and a letter to a female employee ( referred to as “A.S”)working the window. The letter, although not explicitly stating his intentions for sexual actions, alluded to some alternative motives as he confesses “I come thru just for a glimpse of you” (Heitman p.1) and even suggests she use the money to “buy a sexy dress for [her] lover”. His motives are more apparent once he provides his email in the letter and includes three condoms. A.S was only 14 years old during this confrontation. The scenario led to police involvement and this is when Det. Steven J. Henthorn presented A.S with two options: 1) he could pose as her and email Heitman to see what he would do when he was told she was only fourteen or 2) she could talk to him directly. A.S chose the email option and Henthorn began to send emails to Heitman posing as A.S but went by the nickname “Rodeo Queen”. Rodeo Queen did not mention her age but later did in “her” second email. Rodeo Queen and Heitman exchanged several emails depicting sexual scenes between Heitman, A.S, and her 13 year old friend “Sue”. On August 2,1998- almost two months after the first encounter and after emphasizing importance of meeting soon due to “her parents taking her on a trip to Kansas[…] in two days” (Heitman p.5)- A.S and Heitman finally made arrangements to meet at a motel. “The police arrested Heitman, [the following day… and] found the prescription drug Viagra, two sundresses, two packages of sheer stockings, five condoms, flavored lubricant, three vibrators, a package of batteries, a videotape entitled “The Lover,” two pairs of panties, and a man's robe.[..]” (Heitman p.5).
Next one must consider the definition of entrapment.

Entrapment, as defined in State v. Heitman, “is the governmental inducement of one to commit a crime not contemplated by the individual in order to prosecute that individual for the commission of the criminal offense.” (Heitman p.5). It is a defense used to defeat a prosecutor’s claims and if proven true mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant’s unlawful conduct. There are two essential elements that determine whether someone is entrapped: “ (1) the government induced the defendant to commit the offense charged and (2) the defendant's predisposition to commit the criminal act was such that the defendant was not otherwise ready and willing to commit the offense.” (Heitman p.5). U.S v. Poehlman is a court case example of entrapment, as it is evident that Poehlman was coerced into committing a crime. Poehlman solely had intentions of traveling to California in order to meet a woman,Sharon, that shared strange fetishes and who he hoped to have a long-term relationship with. Once he arrived in California, Sharon, “offered him some pornographic magazines featuring children, which he accepted and examined. He commented that he had always looked at little girls” (Poelman 3). From there, Mr.Poehlman was arrested and charged for attempted lewd acts with a minor. One issue with this case is that officials were only able to convict him of these charges within California; therefore, if they had not coerced him to traveling to California there would be no case. This shifted the courts ruling from guilty to innocent due to

entrapment.
I agree with the ruling of entrapment in U.S v. Poehlman for several reasons. First, his failed attempts with other women put him in a vulnerable spot and could be one reason he continued this relationship with a woman who only wanted “a special man teacher for her children”(Poehlman p.2). “Sharon made it clear that agreeing to serve as a sexual mentor to her daughters was a condition to any further communications” (Poehlman p.5) and being in a vulnerable state Poehlman is more likely to take extreme measures to continue a relationship with Sharon. Secondly, it was not until Sharon brought up the conversation several times, persistently about wanting a children’s sex instructor that Poehlman even considered committing such acts. Furthermore, there is no evidence of predisposition, an important factor in determining entrapment.“Poehlman's erotic e-mails cannot provide proof of predisposition because nothing he says in them helps differentiate his state of mind prior to the government's intervention from that afterwards.” (Poehlman p.6) and “The only indication in the record of any preexisting interest in children is Poehlman's statement in the hotel room that he has ‘always looked at little girls’, hardly an indication that he was prone to engage in sexual relations with minors.” (Poehlman p.6). In the case of U.S. v. Poehlman, “it was the government who initiated contact or suggestions of impropriety” (Poehlman p.7). Whereas in State v. Heitman, “it was Heitman who initiated the events by giving a 14-year-old girl a sexually suggestive letter, money, condoms, and his e-mail address.” (Heitman p.7); therefore, this is a point against the argument of entrapment.
Finally, I will conclude my agreement with the ruling of no entrapment in State v. Heitman by touching on a few utilitarian and retributivist ideas. A utilitarian’s main purpose for punishment is deterrence. Bentham insinuates that deterrence is one of the most effective methods of punishment a society can enforce: “When an offence is so circumstanced that it can’t be committed except in a certain place […] the law can disable the offender from committing it by simply prevent him from being in that place.” (Bentham 15:20). However, as stated in Tunick’s powerpoint on Entrapment, one must consider whether there is a deterrent benefit to punishing a person who the police entice (Tunick:18). Punishing a person enticed by the police may deter in two ways: (1) it provides general deterrence by showing society that there will be consequences and (2) it produces individual deterrence, but only when a “true criminal” is caught as those are the only individuals that require deterrence. (Tunick, 18). Therefore, utilitarians tend to agree that it is acceptable to entrap criminals especially if it nabs the “true criminals”. A retributivist views entrapment differently, as they question whether those enticed by police are less culpable. Some arguments for why they are less culpable include: (1) “they are less culpable [because] they do not ‘cause harm’” as when the police entice a criminal they will typically step in before a crime actually happens and (2) “ they are less culpable [because] their actions [were not completely] voluntary: the police ‘coerced’ them”- take for example being held at gunpoint and told “your money or your life. This is an offer; however, it is not a voluntary choice when someone chooses their life because they were coerced into doing so (Tunick:22,32). The first point is something a retributivist would find important because if no harm has been committed then why punish? “Punishment can never be inflicted merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for the society. It must always be inflicted upon him only because he committed a crime” (Kant p.140). This statement indicates the main purpose of punishment in retribution and that this practice would disagree with entrapment. If entrapment leads to no harm than society cannot punish the criminal and if entrapment leads to deterrence it is providing a means that benefits society. However, society tends to punish those who do not cause any harm but have committed anticipatory offenses- such as DUIs. Such offenses pose the risk for harm; therefore, they must be punished, while an individual entrapped arguably does not risk harm because the government will intervene taking away all potential risk (Tunick:24). Yet, I somewhat disagree with the statement that an entrapped individual lacks any potential risk therefore we cannot punish them. There is still a risk that this criminal may have caused harm; what if it was not the government that coerced him but another individual, nobody would be there to automatically intervene. As human beings, we try to protect ourselves from any threats that may even slightly have the possibility to exist and therefore punish those who do not cause harm. From here, I define myself as a situational retributivist or utilitarian as I can agree with certain points from each side. Overall, I agree that in the case of State v. Heitman he was not entrapped based upon the facts presented and the definition of entrapment.