MOVIES & CRIME: Entrapment

 

Entrapment

“Entrapment is what cops do to thieves,” Sean Connery delivers his line as Mac in the movie Entrapment. 

  

“I am a thief,” Gin, a female insurance investigator (Catherine Zeta Jones) utters to Mac, the older master thief.

 

She claims she is a thief.  He is a master thief.  She wants his help but he works alone.  Can these two join forces to pull off an impossible heist as the clocks winds down to the millennium? 

  

Under statute law, theft means that the defendant i.) exercised control, ii.) over property of another, iii.) unlawfully with intent to permanently deprive that person of the property.

  

Mask heist at the Bedford Palace

Gin and Mac set out to steal the priceless mask at the Bedford Palace in Scotland. Their very act meets the definition of theft.  Their second heist at the International Clearance Bank in Kuala Lumpur deprived the bank of $8 billion.  Wow.  They stole.  

  

Thefts have different degrees:

 

1.)  Grand Larceny (felony)

2.) Misdemeanor (petty)

 

You face a felony charge when:

 

1.)  Property of a value above a given amount (e.g. $400)

2.) Thefts of items regarded as important w/o regard for value (e.g. automobiles, firearms.)

3.) Theft from person of another w/o regard to value.

 

 

Remember that a felony is more severe than a misdemeanor.  You face death penalty or imprisonment; not only that, you are imprisoned in a state prison than your local. 

 

 

The defendant can claim in court he/she was “entrapped” into committing the act by law enforcement officer or one acting as an agent of law enforcement officer.

 

 

Can Mac claim entrapment defense? 

Virginia “Gin” Baker is an insurance investigator hired by the law enforcement.    

  

Entrapment defense can only be applied to victimless crimes such as solicitation, selling drugs.  Entrapment defense cannot be claimed in cases where serious bodily injury has incurred on another person.  The defense is only available where entrapment was made by law enforcement officer or person cooperating with them such as informers and undercover agents.  They are paid for their services but not formally employed.  

  

Gin fits as “persons cooperating with law enforcement officer,” employed at Waverly Insurance to entrap master thief, Mac.   Gin’s boss is Hector Cruz whom she calls to report her findings with Mac.  When Gin propositions Mac to steal the mask in Scotland, Mac suspects Gin’s intent to turn him in after their first heist.  Gin protests to his accusations attesting her job as undercover insisting that her job is the real cover.  She is just as much of a thief as Mac.  Is Gin playing both sides?  Regardless, they are both thieves to the core.  Perversely, Mac has also cooperated with law enforcement, Aaron Thibadeaux assigned to the FBI, specifically to “entrap” Gin. 

  

Mac and Gin make a great team in Entrapment

So who could get whom in their heists?  The defendant who claims entrapment has the burden of proof that he/she was induced by officer to commit the charged crime.  Upon proof of inducing the crime, the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed so as to preclude entrapment.

  

Gin is the thief that stole the priceless mask on their first heist.  Mac guided her giving her pointers but she fulfilled the job herself alone at the scene of the crime.  Mac was an accomplice.  Wouldn’t Mac be proud as a professional himself?  If I was a professional, I’d be impressed by her successful stint.  This is the famous scene where Gin (Catherine Zeta Jones) flexes her limbs through laser beams like a circus acrobat. 

  

The jurisdiction of the burden of proof rests on the defendant.  Defendant cannot deny committing the crime.  The defendant cannot refute committing the crime and claim entrapment.  So now if Gin gets accused of stealing the priceless mask, she cannot refute it.  She did, in fact, steal it herself at the heavily guarded Bedford Palace.  But Mac was there with her.  They were both there.  Some courts even require defendant to admit to the guilt of the crime to argue entrapment.  Defendant must affirmatively admit offense by testifying or stipulating to guilt or likeness of it in some ways.        

  

A critical question the jury has to ask themselves:  Was the accused predisposed to commit the sort of crimes involved?  Had the defendant been predisposed, jury would reject the entrapment defense.  Evidence of repeated requests by police and appeals of officers has to show up for crimes to have been committed.  Mac definitely is predisposed to thievery.  Gin, on the other hand, does not have past history to indicate her predisposition to thievery.  

  

The jury would throw out the entrapment defense if evidence of the defendant’s readily responding to the opportunity to commit the crime and have committed similar offenses before which show the predisposition to crime.  It is up to the jury and judge to decide if Gin was predisposed to steal before she was entrapped by the FBI.

  

Nature of the police activity is salient.  Was the offense committed in response to the law enforcement activity that would cause a reasonable person to commit a crime?  Mac was not instructed to tempt Gin into committing a heist.  Gin came up with the ideas herself.       

         

If a police officer approached a suspect and offered an opportunity to commit the crime without probable cause or reasonable suspicions to believe the person was predisposed to commit such offenses.  

  

Petrona Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur

Gin convinces Mac to join her on their second heist at Kuala Lumpur for $8 billion.  They too clinch that job (although not as clean sweep) transferring $8 billion as they count down to the millennial.  After the transfer takes place, Gin kisses Mac too convincingly.  As a viewer, you get the feeling Gin has feelings for Mac.  And if the character Mac does not change his plans to turn her in after the second heist to the FBI, he looks like a complete bastard.  If their relationship meant anything to him, he has to devise a different plan for her.  The movie cannot conclude with his successfully entrapping Gin to the FBI to make the audiences happy. 

 

How can Mac get out of this entangled mash-up?  If he does not try to turn Gin in, he can be accused as an accomplice to Gin.  He switched partners from the FBI to Gin’s side.  So he cannot do that.  He has to make it look like Gin pulled a sudden stunt holding Mac hostage as the last attempt to bail herself out.  So when the FBI set up for her arrest at the Pudu station, Mac gives her a passport and update her not on the $8 billion but reduced down to $1 billion earnings from their second heist.  He covers her.  She pulls off the last-minute hostage turn-around on Mac in front of the FBI.  But the movie does not end there.  Mac sits alone on the station’s bench reflecting back on their shared moments together.  He chuckles.  He smiles.  He has on that ‘we shared some good times’ face. 

 

Mac and Gin at Pudu Station

Too bad but Mac’s face tells others that he is ready to move on.  Just then, Gin shows up after another train rushes by.  To Mac’s surprise, she stands before him.  She had to after he covered her with everything.  How did she do it?  She tells off a quick story which shows her mobile skills by jumping trains as another train rushes past in front of their eyes.  She can no longer see him.  He ran to her side of the platform.  He had to run over to where she stood because she jumped trains to be with him.  They are in sync.  Gin’s last lines to Mac imply their future traveling across the globe together to another heist.  “It’s doable,” Mac replies.  A nice ending is well-deserved for these two great thieves who made a great team and had made a clean break before the FBI.  They set off together as partners.