YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → 167920 People of MI v Jayneel Ravindra Jade

167920 People of MI v Jayneel Ravindra Jade — Transcript

by Michigan Supreme Court · 7,837 words · 1,175 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00calling our second case
0:03uh people versus jade. Uh this is also a
0:0820 minute uh grant.
0:14Uh
0:48Mr. Gentleman, you have two minutes of
0:50fire free zone. Uh, and you may reserve
0:52any time that you would like for
0:53rebuttal. We just ask that you keep
0:55track of that.
0:56>> Thank you, your honor. Uh, good morning,
0:57your honors. May it please the court.
0:59Tim Dolman on behalf of J Neil Jade. I'm
1:02joined this morning at council table by
1:04my co-consel Scott Greybel. Uh I will
1:06try to reserve five minutes for a
1:08rebuttal and I'll keep track of my own
1:10time. Your honors, when we talk about
1:12enttrapment, I I think just as important
1:14as defining what enttrapment is is
1:17defining what enttrapment is not.
1:20Entrament is not a duress defense. It's
1:23not a voluntariness defense. It does not
1:26require the defense to show that the
1:27defendant's will was overborn. If we go
1:30back and read the foundational cases
1:32from this court, the United States
1:34Supreme Court, the crux of enttrapment
1:36is really about stopping police from
1:38manufacturing crimes that otherwise
1:40would not have occurred. And the gist is
1:43really that we want police investigating
1:45real crimes, catching real criminals
1:47rather than creating crimes for the sake
1:49of arresting and prosecuting people. So
1:53to me, as I read the case law, really
1:55the central question in any entrapment
1:57case is, were police manufacturing a
2:00crime that the defendant otherwise would
2:02not have committed? And I think uh all
2:05the different tests for enttrapment,
2:06subjective, objective, and all these
2:08different maxims about mere
2:11opportunities and hypothetical
2:13law-abiding people and the 12 factors
2:15and all that. I think those things were
2:17originally designed to help us answer
2:18that central question about
2:20manufacturing crime, but at the same
2:22time, I think they can also serve to
2:24obscure the true meaning of enttrapment
2:26and lead the lower courts astray, which
2:29I think is what happened in this case.
2:31And so that brings me to the second
2:33question that this uh court asked the
2:35parties to address and that is whether
2:38the court of appeals aired by uh
2:41applying the standard that a mere
2:43opportunity to commit a crime is not
2:45entrament without also considering uh
2:48readiness and willingness and obviously
2:50to me the answer is yes. uh in People v.
2:53Jameson, the case that this court cited
2:55in his order granting leave, the court
2:57said, quote, "There is no enttrapment if
3:00a policeman merely furnishes an
3:01opportunity for the commission of a
3:03crime by one ready and willing to commit
3:05the activity." And I don't think you can
3:08take ready and willing out of that maxim
3:11because we have cases from this court
3:12and other juris excuse me, jurisdictions
3:15where a mere opportunity council.
3:17>> Good morning.
3:17>> Good morning.
3:18>> I'd like to just keep things simple and
3:19go right to the point. This was a
3:22website that was designed for adults,
3:25was it not? It was an adult website.
3:27>> Correct, your honor.
3:28>> So, ultimately, the defendant in this
3:30situation went to a website where he
3:33believed he'd be engaging with adults.
3:35That was his intent, was it not?
3:36>> It was, your honor.
3:37>> Okay. Thank you.
3:39>> All right. Thank you. Um,
3:42and so, as I say, I don't think you can
3:44take ready and willing out of the beer
3:47opportunity maxim. Um, and I think the
3:50late Justice Kavanaaugh put it well in
3:52Jameson uh when he wrote that a mere
3:56opportunity uh to commit a crime can be
3:58entrament if the opportunity would not
4:00be normally presented or if it requires
4:03the police to uh engage in some type of
4:05immoral acts. And I I believe the
4:07prosecutor agrees with me because they
4:09cite that um that quote in their brief
4:12as well. So
4:14if we recognize that a mere opportunity
4:16can be entrament, I think that means
4:18that we always need to assess uh the
4:21ready and willing side of the equation.
4:24Uh in Mr. J's case, obviously that
4:26didn't happen in the court of appeals at
4:28least. Uh the court of appeals decision
4:30is really replete with references to
4:33this idea that a mere opportunity to
4:35commit a crime is not entrament without
4:38also considering ready and willing. Uh
4:41so I I I think it's clear that the court
4:43of appeals in this case aired in how it
4:45applied this court's uh enttrapment
4:47jurist prudence.
4:48>> Council, what do we do with the fact on
4:50the on the ready and willing point um
4:54with the particular facts of this case
4:57where
4:59um perhaps his comment that she needed
5:03to be at least 16.
5:06Um and in fact he was charged with CSAA
5:10which also requires it to be under 18
5:13right and and so there's the comment of
5:15she you have to be at least 16 is still
5:18isn't it not indicative of a ready and
5:21willingness to commit a crime still
5:26because this person like willing to do
5:29she's 16 but that's still under 18
5:31that's still a crime
5:33>> right your honor so that that's a great
5:34question And I think uh two answers.
5:37Number one, under the objective test, we
5:40really need to be looking at what was
5:42the police conduct. And and ready and
5:44willing under the objective test asks,
5:47was this police conduct designed to
5:50catch only those who are ready and
5:52willing to commit the crime? And that is
5:54we look at that without reference to
5:56defendant bydefendant analysis. The
5:59other thing is that to me ready and
6:02willing means what was the defendant's
6:04intent before he ever crossed paths with
6:07police. And so here his intent was to
6:10solicit a consensual adult interaction.
6:14The question is not did he become ready
6:16and willing to commit a different crime
6:18once presented with a different
6:20opportunity. We have to go back to what
6:22was his original intent and how that was
6:25manipulated by police. So, and and um I
6:30think when we talk about, well, wasn't
6:31he ready and willing to commit this
6:33crime? We're talk it starts to look a
6:35lot like predisposition is my point,
6:37which we're not supposed to assess. So,
6:39I think that line of thinking takes us
6:41somewhat dangerously close to the
6:43subjective test.
6:44>> So, council, what would what would be a
6:46valid operation here? Uh, you know, I
6:49mean, I know like I assume, um, you
6:51would be okay if they were on some dark
6:54website where, you know, everybody it's
6:56known that everybody's underage. Um, I
6:59think that's probably a easier line,
7:01right?
7:02>> Um, you know, I So, what what let's
7:05assume they're still on Skip the Games.
7:07What would have been is there anything
7:09they can do on that site that's legal
7:11with a decoy? Yeah, I was thinking about
7:13that, your honor. And I think part of
7:15the problem is that Skip the Games is so
7:17explicitly designed for adults only.
7:20They have all these disclaimers about
7:22it's only for adults. If we catch wind
7:25of anything else going on, you know,
7:27reach out to us. We don't need a
7:29subpoena or search warrant or anything
7:30like that. Now, if at some point um it
7:35becomes clear that that those
7:37disclaimers are all lip service and
7:38everyone knows and we have evidence that
7:40this is the go-to place if you're
7:42looking for an underage escort, it could
7:43be a different situation, but um we
7:46don't have that in this case. Um, and it
7:48was also interesting to me, um, looking
7:51at the videos that Cedam presented, uh,
7:54because in addition to these types of
7:56sting operations, uh, Jennese County is
7:59also doing what they call rescue
8:01operations where they're essentially
8:02trolling these websites looking for
8:05actual children being trafficked and
8:07then they go out and rescue them. To me,
8:10there there's zero problem with that.
8:11That's what they should be doing. So
8:13frankly I think the resources should go
8:15toward those types of operations rather
8:17than than these
8:20>> councelor there's some indications in
8:22this particular case that there are
8:24there are standards or best practices
8:26around these police stings you know
8:29there's a recording there's training of
8:31a decoy there's um having the defendant
8:35be the first person to bring up h how do
8:38we look at that in our in the analysis
8:41is that part of the 12 factors Is that
8:43something else? Like how do we look at
8:44what should be happening as a mandar
8:47standard practice and when an
8:49investigation does or doesn't comply
8:50with that?
8:51>> To me, I think that fits best under
8:54reprehensibility and reprehensible being
8:57somewhat of a term of art in this
8:59context about what was the police's
9:01intent. Was it to catch people who they
9:03believed or had reason to believe were
9:04actually committing this crime or were
9:06they creating these crimes for the sake
9:08of arresting people? Um, and so when you
9:12have these kind of freewheing operations
9:14that really have no operational
9:16constraints or or do in name only that
9:18they're not following and Cam's brief
9:21had some really egregious instances of
9:24that. To me, that fits most neatly under
9:27reprehensibility that they're not even
9:29following these constraints that they
9:30supposedly set out that really their
9:32intent is is merely to manufacture
9:35arrests at that point.
9:41Um, so kind of what we touched on before
9:43about what does ready and willing mean.
9:46Um, I think it's interesting that on
9:48page 30 uh of the prosecution's brief,
9:50they they explicitly endorse this idea
9:52that well, the defendant committed the
9:54crime, therefore he must have been ready
9:56and willing to commit it. If that's the
9:58test, then entrament effectively ceases
10:01to exist. because in all these cases or
10:04almost all these cases, we start from
10:06the premise that the defendant committed
10:07the charge crime. Right? So again, I
10:10think it's crucial that we recognize the
10:12the distinction of did the defendant
10:15become ready and willing uh once the
10:18criminal opportunity was presented or
10:20was he ready and willing before police
10:23ever entered the picture? Um and again,
10:27I think that's a distinction the lower
10:28courts missed in this case. So to be
10:30>> so so counselor, you know, there's a lot
10:32of debate in the literature, you know,
10:33sort of how objective or subjective this
10:35is and so we have sort of mixed the two
10:39previously in prior cases. Um is your
10:42position that ready and willingness is,
10:44you know, an average person or is it the
10:46defendant in this particular case? Which
10:48of those is your perspective on what
10:49this rule is?
10:50>> Yeah, that's a great question. I mean,
10:52under Gullette, it's a person similarly
10:55situated. So, um, which I think some of
10:59the dissenting and concurring opinions,
11:01uh, in Gullette suggested starts to
11:05sound a lot like predisposition as well.
11:07Um, in Jul
11:09was to the defendant's vulnerabilities.
11:12Um, setting aside predisposition. So
11:14really uh as far as I can tell that's
11:17the best example of of when we consider
11:19the particular um circumstances of the
11:22defendant without predisposition. How
11:25that plays out in practice every day I
11:27think is a thorny question that I hope
11:29this court will bring clarity to.
11:36So, as I read the case law, ready and
11:38willing uh means would the defendant
11:42have committed the same crime without
11:43police involvement? And if you if the
11:46answer is yes, and obviously the police
11:47have not manufactured a crime because
11:49the defendant would have committed it
11:51anyways. Um and I think uh People v.
11:53Williams, the court of appeals decision
11:55that I cited in my brief is a pretty
11:57good example of that where police
11:59targeted a high drug trafficking area.
12:02They posted an undercover uh police
12:04officer on the corner um as a as a drug
12:07dealer and waited for people to approach
12:10the undercover officer, initiate
12:13conversation, and let the suspect ask
12:16for drugs. Didn't say, "Hey, do you want
12:18to buy drugs?" Let the the suspect do
12:21all the talking. And to me, that is kind
12:24of the quintessential example of a mere
12:27opportunity that someone ready, willing,
12:29would seize. The person standing on the
12:33corner did not induce
12:35the the suspects to seek out drugs. I
12:37think objectively speaking, we can
12:39assume that if this person had not
12:41approached the undercover officer, they
12:43would have approached someone else. So
12:45that to me that that's a a great example
12:47of this maximum practice.
12:53Uh taking a step back, I want to be very
12:55clear that I believe uh these sting
12:58operations or or certain sting
12:59operations are valid um and often
13:02necessary to to investigate these types
13:04of crimes. Uh but they have to be
13:07designed in a way to where they're
13:09catching people um who were set out to
13:12commit the crimes rather than creating
13:14crimes that otherwise would not have
13:16existed. And there there's a quote from
13:18I think it's the Hollingsworth case that
13:20was cited in my brief that to be valid a
13:23sting operation has to take an actually
13:25dangerous person out of sit out of
13:27circulation. Um obviously that's not
13:30what happened in this case. I mean
13:32before crossing paths with police Mr.
13:34Jade never had the intent to solicit an
13:37underage escort. None of the suspects
13:39caught up in these bait and switch
13:40stings have that intent. Instead, they
13:43were all seeking consensual encounters
13:46with adults. Um, and there's really zero
13:49evidence that I've seen there that's
13:51been presented to suggest that they
13:52would have committed these crimes
13:53without police involvement. And to me,
13:56that's really the the essence of
13:58enttrapment.
14:00>> Is it is it I mean, are you asking us to
14:03draw a line like had had the defendant
14:05respond when the decoy said, "Actually,
14:07I'm under 15, lol." Had he said, "No
14:11problem." or great, even better. Or, you
14:14know, whatever.
14:15>> Fine. Clearly not entrament, right? Like
14:17that. So, but but when he said nope, is
14:21that you know, once that was said, is
14:25there some obligation on the police's
14:28part to
14:30to to then stop? I mean, in some of
14:32these cases, less so perhaps in this
14:34case, but in some of the others where
14:36it's repeated,
14:38you know, pursuing or or or trying to um
14:43even after the first no, is that is it
14:46like a a hard line at the first no or
14:48the first l, you know, indication of I'm
14:51not willing to commit that crime even if
14:55you know, in the next text he's like,
14:58well, okay,
14:59>> you know, I mean, how do we draw that
15:00line or is it still looking at you know
15:03like what our existing case law does
15:04that and the 12 factors help us sort of
15:07draw that line in a particular case
15:09>> to me since we have the objective test
15:11in Michigan the focus always has to be
15:14on the police and the case law says that
15:16proper police conduct doesn't change
15:19from defendant to defendant and so I
15:21frankly I think even in the case where
15:24uh you have someone who says oh great
15:26you're 15 even better I think that's
15:28still enttrapment uh because Again, this
15:32person still
15:32>> they brought it up.
15:34>> Pardon me.
15:34>> They they brought it up. They made the
15:37the circumstance of the crime at issue.
15:40>> Correct. The the person was ready and
15:42willing to engage an adult. That's why
15:44they went on Skip the Games. Whether
15:46they later became ready and willing to
15:48give it a different crime, but presented
15:49with that opportunity, I think is a
15:51different question. Um, and this is a
15:54quote from from Jameson that um I think
15:57I cited in my brief, but maybe I should
15:59have emphasized it more. Uh, where the
16:01court said, "Discretionary investigative
16:04enforcement measures extend beyond a
16:06tolerable level when by design the
16:09government uses procedures which
16:11escalate criminal culpability." I mean,
16:13that's this case to a te in every
16:15situation. Um, and really I guess what I
16:20mean to say is the entire construct of
16:22this sting operation was designed to
16:24take people intent to commit one crime
16:26and get them to commit another crime.
16:28Under Jameson, that's entrament, plain
16:31and simple, for for everyone, I think,
16:33involved in these sting operations. Let
16:35me let me try and clarify just and and I
16:37think you've maybe already said this or
16:39answered it, but but if your position is
16:41that even in the circumstance I
16:43described where the decoy says I'm
16:46actually 15 and the defendant says no
16:49problem, that is still enttrapment
16:53because of that. So in that circumst or
16:56so is there never a circumstance
16:58on an other than on an adult website or
17:03something that has been you know build
17:05that you have to be or there are
17:06protections to say you're over 18 or
17:08whatever it is that that you cannot it's
17:12entrament
17:15on a website like that short of I think
17:17you answered earlier evidence that
17:19actually we knew that this website
17:22actually wasn't just for adults.
17:24>> But once you're when that's not the case
17:28and it's an admittedly, you know,
17:30adult-tononly website,
17:33the police going on there and initiating
17:34sort of any kind of conversation
17:37is is going to be entrament
17:40>> in this bait and switch context.
17:42Correct. I mean, if this were just a
17:43prostitution sting, we have no
17:46entrapment argument. So, in the context
17:48of the bait and switch uh procedure,
17:50yes, I think that's correct.
17:53What? Oh, sorry. I was just going to
17:55say, what if the defendant
17:58asked if she was under 15? Asked if she
18:00was 15. I like 15 year olds, 14.
18:04>> What if they had done that on this
18:05adults only website,
18:07>> you know? I think
18:09[snorts]
18:11again that that's talking a lot of to me
18:13that feels a lot like predisposition,
18:15right? And we're the question is were
18:17police um was this police operation
18:20designed to only catch those ready and
18:22willing um not the circumstance of each
18:25individual defendant. And I I think um
18:28>> but isn't that more like the drug dealer
18:30offering drugs just hey drugs for sale?
18:32Anybody walking by? Isn't that a little
18:33more like you're they're coming in and
18:37they're the one initiating? I don't know
18:40because um I think it was uh Justice
18:42Kavanaaugh and Jameson or Jul
18:48with someone who is ready and willing to
18:50commit the crime. Um and I think that's
18:53a strong point and why we need to be
18:55looking at the police activity rather
18:57than all these questions about the
18:59individual defendants which starts to
19:01look a lot like predisposition.
19:03I think uh one area where the court
19:07could help clean up the law here is on
19:09standard of review and that's the first
19:11question we asked about and I don't may
19:13maybe maybe I missed but we really dug
19:16into that very much here. Um
19:20it seems to me that we could we could
19:22clean it up by saying well there in
19:25these types of cases there has to be
19:28legal findings and there have to be
19:29factual findings. And when it comes to
19:31factual findings, because the trial
19:33court is there reviewing the evidence
19:35and able to judge credibility and make
19:37determinations that that is reviewed for
19:39clear error and then legal findings are
19:42reviewed denovo. Do you have any problem
19:43with that standard?
19:44>> No, I that's exactly the standard I'm
19:46advocating for.
19:47>> What do we do with the trial court's
19:49finding that defend he did not believe
19:52defendant um when he when defendant
19:55claimed that he did not believe the
19:57decoy was 15 years old.
20:00I mean, there's this exchange. Got to be
20:0216. No, I'm 15. The trial court
20:05concluded defendant believed this person
20:08to be 15. Isn't that reviewed for clear
20:10error?
20:11>> Correct.
20:12>> And then what do we do with that? I
20:13mean, how do we say no, that's clear
20:15error here when there's two instances
20:17where there's an actual got to be 15 or
20:20got to be 16 and the response is no, I'm
20:23you know, I'm 15.
20:24>> So, no, I I don't think this court could
20:26call that clear. I disagree with that
20:28finding, but that doesn't mean it's
20:29clear error or that this court could
20:31find that it's clear error. I I don't
20:33think this court needs to find clear
20:34error in that circumstance to set decide
20:37in our favor. Uh because again, I think
20:39really what the trial court was talking
20:42about was was predisposition under
20:44different guys. Um so I think we need to
20:47go back, look at police conduct, apply
20:48an objective test to this, and that's
20:50where the legal error um that the trial
20:52court committed comes in.
20:55>> Thank you,
20:56>> council. Um you you brought up Jameson
20:59um which I agree has sort of some some
21:03helpful language and understanding this
21:05concept. Um
21:07I I want to just talk about sort of this
21:09escalating criminal activity.
21:11So we have a site here where maybe
21:13there's one crime and it's escalating to
21:16another crime. How how would in your
21:18view um how would that work if this
21:20exact same thing was happening on um I
21:22don't know Tinder or you know a dating
21:24site where it's just a normal dating
21:26site
21:27>> would that same analysis apply sort of
21:30the Jameson analysis
21:31>> that's happening right now Tinder
21:34Grinder all these sites they they've
21:35moved on from skip the games
21:37>> right right so that's what I'm wondering
21:38if that same analysis applies we've got
21:40skip the games or maybe you know there's
21:42sort of one unlawful activity happening
21:44already
21:45>> those other sites They are not.
21:48>> And I think those sting out. If I I'm
21:50out of time. If I could answer this
21:51question. Um,
21:52>> yeah, I I think certainly there's an
21:54argument to be made that those types of
21:56operations are particularly
21:58reprehensible. But I think the same
22:00analysis applies. It's a question of
22:03were police manufacturing crimes that
22:06the defendant otherwise would not have
22:08committed. And in those stinging
22:09operations, the answer is yes. These are
22:11adult weight adult dating websites. um
22:15the person went on seeking um you know
22:18an adult uh for companionship and so
22:22yeah I think the exact same analysis
22:23applies.
22:26>> Thank you.
22:27>> All right. Thank you your honor.
22:28>> Thank you.
22:40Good morning your honors and may it
22:41please the court. Paige Petroski on
22:42behalf of the people of Van Beern
22:43County, state of Michigan.
22:46Because our analysis under entrapment
22:48doctrine is focused on law enforcement's
22:49conduct, it's necessary to look at
22:51exactly what uh the decoy messenger had
22:53messaged defendant and how he had
22:55responded after the two had uh just
22:57engaged in small talk discussing the
22:59logistics of where to meet for the sex
23:00work to occur prior to um the actual uh
23:04uh crime occurring. So, the decoy asks,
23:06"Are you cool with younger chicks?" The
23:08defendant says, "I am." And the decoy
23:10says, "Okay, cool. cuz I'm 15. At this
23:12point, law enforcement has provided
23:14defendant with the opportunity to commit
23:15child sexual abusive activity because if
23:18the defendant continues to uh continues
23:20preparing to or soliciting the decoy for
23:23sex work after being informed that she
23:24is a child under the age of 18, he is
23:27then engaging in financing, arranging,
23:29attempting, preparing for, conspiring,
23:31etc. to commit child sexual abusive
23:33activity. And so in this exact moment,
23:35defendant indicates his immediate
23:37readiness and his willingness, but he
23:39also, this isn't all that he does. So,
23:41but in this instance, a hypothetical
23:43person who is interested in soliciting a
23:45consenting adult sex worker, but who is
23:47not ready and willing to commit child
23:48sexual abusive activity would simply
23:51stop responding and end the conversation
23:52or otherwise indicate in some manner
23:54that they are not.
23:55>> That wasn't his idea though, right? That
23:57wasn't his idea.
23:59>> It wasn't. He was initially seeking at
24:01least nominally, a an adult on the
24:03website. Um, skip the games, although it
24:05you do have to be 19 to create an
24:07account. Um, there are no actual age
24:09verification procedures in place. And
24:11skip the games.com is a website where
24:13CISA and related offenses is
24:14facilitated. um as well as um and it's
24:18also there's just been a number of cases
24:20in which um CISA and CISA relate or
24:22>> didn't the government plant this idea
24:24like wasn't the government the entity
24:26that planted the whole idea of an
24:28underage person?
24:31I think it's it's sort of akin to um how
24:34in um drug undercover operations uh law
24:37enforcement might provide say you know
24:39some soap made to look like cocaine or
24:41you know encased in cocaine. They are
24:43providing the in essence the contraband
24:46but in reality all they're doing is
24:47presenting merely presenting the
24:49>> wouldn't the analogy be the drug dealer
24:51walking up to the person and asking if
24:52they want to buy drugs?
24:54>> No. So they'll um it would be more it's
24:58more similar to um like a people v
24:59Williams or people v Butler in which the
25:01law enforcement is placing the decoy um
25:04in a forum in which it's they have
25:06information that the in crime being
25:08investigated is being facilitated and
25:10then they wait until someone approaches
25:12them. So that already narrows down their
25:14the focus of their investigation to um
25:17to just people who are willing to at
25:19least seek them out. So that already
25:21narrows it down. But then further um
25:23>> but in this situation the defendant
25:25never said I like underage women and I
25:27like 15y olds. The government said that.
25:30>> That's correct. But then all at the
25:31point that the government says okay cuz
25:33I'm 15. All the government has done to
25:36uh induce uh the defendant or cause
25:39beguile any of the other terms that have
25:41been used throughout the year the years.
25:43All that law enforcement has done has
25:45set is to state their age. And simply
25:47stating someone's age is not um is not
25:50the type of conduct that would uh cause
25:53or induce someone to then seek out a
25:55child to sol solicit them for sex.
25:57>> But the age is what makes it a crime.
25:59>> It is. Yes.
26:00>> So it's it's not just a you know a fact,
26:03right? It is the it is the thing that
26:06makes it a crime.
26:07>> Yes. But the what they're they haven't
26:10engaged in any conduct that would be
26:13cons wouldn't essentially it would be
26:15stating that just the mere saying her
26:18age or the statement of the age would be
26:20enough for us to accept that that would
26:22be um sufficient to cause a hypothetical
26:24unwilling and unready person to go on
26:26and solicit the child for sex. So if um
26:29we because uh under the Michigan's uh
26:32modified enttrapment test um the under
26:34impermissible inducement we are
26:36comparing the response of a hypothetical
26:38person who's not ready and willing to
26:40commit the crime but who is in the
26:41defendant's circumstances. We're
26:43comparing what that hypothetical
26:44response would be to how the defendant
26:46then actually responded in the
26:47circumstance. And then that is used to
26:50uh basically uh evaluate how much
26:52inducement law enforcement actually had
26:54to engage in to cause the the defendant
26:57to commit the offense if any at all. Um,
26:59and ultimately it's a better
27:00determination of whether or not law
27:02enforcement was engaging conduct um
27:05engaging in conduct in which a ready and
27:07willing person or a non- ready and
27:08willing person um
27:10>> my concern on this whole situation and I
27:12apologize for asking so many questions
27:14but my concern over the whole situation
27:15is the whole idea of entrapment is that
27:17the government doesn't go out and
27:19solicit or encourage people to illicit
27:22or participate in bad behavior. And I
27:24guess the concern I have here is is that
27:26if the government hadn't been the entity
27:28that said, "Well, 15," then none of this
27:31would have happened. This would never
27:33have happened if the government hadn't
27:35basically said, you know, created the
27:38opportunity for him to to do this. Well,
27:41and that is um really sort of the the
27:44the crux of it is that the they all that
27:47they did was create the opportunity and
27:49this court and really um courts pretty
27:51consistently going back for as long as
27:53enttrapment doctrine has been accepted
27:55is that the mere presentation of the
27:57opportunity is not sufficient uh
27:59sufficiently inducing conduct in order
28:01to induce someone. So
28:03>> what what about the fact that in this
28:04case and I recognize obviously these are
28:06are very factually specific but not only
28:09did the police
28:11or the decoy initiate the 15year-old
28:13comment, which to be fair, the defendant
28:18a couple of times said, "Don't have to
28:20be 16. I'm [snorts] cool if you're older
28:22than 15 and you want to role play to be
28:2515." Um, but then it was also the decoy
28:29who initiated
28:32the sexual contact, right? The sex the
28:34the proposition of sex. So, it'd already
28:37been out there about the 15
28:40if it was never if I mean like isn't it
28:42the 15 plus the the sex and both of
28:45those are coming from the police,
28:47>> right? So, um obviously the record is
28:50very clear that the first person to to
28:52make a sexual comment in any way was the
28:54decoy. However, because the um
28:56investigation was being uh was being
28:59conducted through Skip the Games, there
29:01was already uh the entire context of the
29:03conversation was the solicitation of the
29:05escort for sex. So, if you look at like
29:07what they're discussing before the they
29:09get into discussion of the age, it's
29:10talking about are you free, are you in
29:12pawpaw, are you available because they
29:14are arranging to meet for the
29:15solicitation of sex to occur. So, that
29:18context is already a part of the
29:19conversation. I would fully agree that
29:21if this was uh say a sting operation
29:24occurring on on like Facebook or
29:26Instagram which also has an age
29:28requirement but children frequently lie
29:30about their ages to go on those websites
29:32and CISA and CSAM are facilitated on
29:34those sites. Um if uh if there was a
29:38this basically this identical
29:39conversation occurred and it was not in
29:41the context of a um someone already
29:44soliciting sex, I think the analysis
29:46would be different. So what about what
29:48about the the examples that CDM cites in
29:51its brief of these operations being you
29:55know now taught and used throughout the
29:57state on completely legal websites like
30:00you're talking about like Grinder and
30:02Tinder and that where I mean you know he
30:05did ask her if she wanted to go out for
30:07dinner. I mean, you might go on, you
30:10know, it's not always necessarily
30:12>> for sex, right? And certainly on
30:15something that isn't built as an escort
30:18service like a grinder or Tinder or
30:19Facebook or what have you,
30:21>> these operations are being used on those
30:23sites as well. Yes. So with um the sort
30:27of the in between between Skip the Games
30:28and Facebook, the sort of the Tinder
30:30Grinder on those sites, people um use
30:32those sites both to find sexual
30:35partners, but then also to potentially
30:37romantically date or engage in these
30:39other types of relationships. And so if
30:41we are examining a investigation being
30:44you know being facilitated on one of
30:46these apps or websites um basically we
30:49can't use sort of the same we can't
30:51operate under the assumption that the
30:53solicitation of sex is necessarily
30:54occurring. We would have to look at the
30:57actual what the conversation was between
30:59the you know the decoy and the the
31:01suspect to determine I mean was the
31:04conversations conduct or
31:05>> but why why I mean I get that that
31:07there's a greater likelihood that skip
31:10the games that the the the interest is
31:13in sex but it doesn't have to be and so
31:17why isn't it relevant again that it was
31:20the police who initiated
31:22sex I mean there there could be you know
31:24an extreme extremely lonely person going
31:26on there saying, "Do you want to have
31:29dinner instead? Do you want to cuddle?"
31:32Whatever. Um,
31:34and if the police are the ones who
31:36initiate sex, why is that not
31:40the enttrapment?
31:42And here they initiated the the offer of
31:45sex and the 15
31:48and the thing that made that sex a not
31:50just a crime of soliciting sex on the
31:52internet but a 20-year felony because of
31:55under 16.
31:57>> Yes. So the
32:00I guess while it would be possible that
32:03some really the part of the difference
32:05is that skip the games and the the
32:07record supports this as well is basic it
32:11although there it's possible there could
32:12be an outlier of someone seeking
32:14cuddling it's it's pretty explicitly and
32:16solely um relevant or it it's ex it's
32:19it's limited to the context of the
32:21solicitation of sex and so that I guess
32:26by defendant already being on that
32:28website and already approaching the the
32:30decoy. He is at least engaging in a
32:32conversation knowing that this context
32:33is surrounding it and then they're
32:34talking about where to meet up prior to
32:36any discussion of age. There is no um
32:39there's nothing of him saying, you know,
32:41oh, I just want to cuddle. There's none
32:43of that going on.
32:43>> No, but I again I'm I'm analogizing like
32:46again to the the police decoy on the
32:49corner of a a high drug traffic area,
32:53right? Yeah. odds are the person walking
32:57past that might approach that person or
32:59talk to them are maybe seeking drugs.
33:01But there's also people who aren't. And
33:03even if that's a rarity, right? Like the
33:06point is the police can't make that
33:10person whether they're, you know, would
33:14be willing or maybe interested in
33:15getting drugs or somebody who isn't,
33:18they can't manufacture the crime.
33:21>> Right? So why is it even though you're
33:23on a website that I don't know, you
33:25know, four out of five dentists would
33:27would be looking for for sex, but but
33:31also maybe not right and and again if
33:34they're initiating it, you know, maybe
33:36that's a different case and I understand
33:38Mr. Dolman saying that that is still
33:39enttrapment, but that's I guess a
33:41different case. But why is it not why is
33:44that not the equivalent that that if
33:47here to me the significance is is both
33:51the the sex which is the lower level
33:55crime even and then the escalation to
33:58the 20-year felony was initiated by the
34:01police. So I guess
34:05I kind of have two parts to how I want
34:07to respond. I um first law enforcement
34:10um when they're um similar to in
34:13Williams when they're engaging you know
34:15in this more general investigation into
34:17a type of criminal activity being
34:18facilitated in a specific forum um they
34:22ultimately are uh adjusting or um the
34:27manner in which the investigation
34:28proceeds is based primarily on how the
34:31suspect responds to the mere
34:32presentation of the opportunity. So, if
34:35the defendant um if in the present case
34:37the defendant stopped the conversation,
34:39law enforcement and the record I believe
34:41also indicates this that the law
34:43enforcement didn't know his name, they
34:45had his phone number, but they didn't
34:46know if that would be like a real phone
34:47number, they had no information. So, he
34:49was ultimately under zero pressure to
34:52completely stop communicating. But
34:54because instead of doing that he engaged
34:56or he furthered his engagement um and
34:59then ultimately when without any
35:01pressure from law enforcement decided to
35:03drive all the way to the to the hotel
35:05that was ultimately that's how law
35:07enforcement even though he was engaging
35:09in conduct sufficient to constitute CISA
35:11by simply continuing to discuss the you
35:14know make the plans to continue um
35:16soliciting the escort for sex after
35:18knowing that she was a child. Um
35:20ultimately
35:22um even after that occurs then law
35:24enforcement does you know doesn't plan
35:26on um making the arrest after he simply
35:29tries to say no you've got to be you've
35:31got to be 16. That's not when they do
35:33it. Ultimately they're tailoring their
35:34investigation um to only uh essentially
35:39arrest or go uh you know seek out
35:42suspects who are so ready and willing
35:44that they are uh willing to drive all
35:46the way.
35:47>> What happens when he says no? Can the
35:48government take the next step and say
35:51you want to think about it or what what
35:52what happens when he says no? So it
35:56ultimately, you know, it is a fact
35:58dependent, so we'd have to look at
35:59everything. But um if he says no and the
36:02government I well I think again context
36:04is relevant. I think it's like the
36:06videos that um that Sedan provided you
36:08know um they mentioned that one of the
36:11um potential suspects who had indicated
36:12he was uh going to drive to the hotel
36:14decided not to because of weather um
36:17because of the inclement weather. And so
36:18in that circumstance um it might be and
36:21again it would need to be evaluated um
36:23under the totality of the circumstances.
36:25But ultimately um the uh that would be
36:29evaluated differently than if someone if
36:31the suspect simply said no I don't I
36:33don't like kids and then the government
36:35continued to go continue to try and push
36:37them. Um, also too, it what the the idea
36:42of the escalating someone's criminal
36:43culpability from um is uh excuse me, the
36:48idea that that is reprehensible is is uh
36:51I'm not arguing that in the slightest,
36:53but in particular when we um examine
36:56especially um when we examine cases
36:59where law enforcement uh engaged in um
37:03uh escalatory uh conduct, generally
37:05speaking, that is when law enforcement
37:07knows that the suspect does not have the
37:09requisite criminal culpability like in
37:11uh people v Killian where the defendant
37:13was a user of cocaine but not a seller
37:15of cocaine and law enforcement had every
37:17reason to know. Um in those
37:19circumstances uh the law enforcement
37:22knows that the defendant does not have
37:23the requisite criminal culpability and
37:25yet still makes the decision to target
37:27them for investigation in knowing that
37:29they would have to engage in
37:30impermissibly inducing conduct in order
37:32to cause or induce them to get to to
37:35commit the offense. And so that's really
37:37where the escalatory uh the escalation
37:40of the culpability becomes a problem is
37:42because law enforcement is making the
37:43determination that it is appropriate or
37:46that it is even you know a a good
37:48decision to make to choose to engage in
37:51behavior or conduct to escalate that
37:53behavior. And so if law enforcement does
37:55not know what a suspect's existing
37:57culpability is, they cannot knowingly
37:59engage in behavior aimed at escalating
38:01it. Councelor, if just um if if we're
38:05really focused on law enforcement's
38:06conduct and let's say um let's say it
38:10wouldn't be entrapment if if they have
38:12guard rails in place such as not raising
38:15the issue of sex, such as training the
38:17people, such as recording everything.
38:19Let's say there are standards and
38:20practices that protect the integrity of
38:22these operations. What do we do when
38:24those aren't honored?
38:27such as in this case where there are
38:28some there there are lapses in in
38:31following the standards that are
38:32supposed to protect the integrity of
38:34this. Doesn't that suggest that we're
38:36over the line at that point? And if not,
38:38why not?
38:39>> Um so I have uh two uh sort of parts to
38:42my response. So first in the present
38:44case there because this was a training
38:46operation, Jennese County was uh
38:49basically showing Van Beerren County how
38:51to uh conduct these investigations.
38:53There were not policies necessarily in
38:55place. So, there were none that could be
38:57violated. There were not policies in
38:59place for law enforcement essentially to
39:00violate in order to induce the conduct
39:02of defendant. Um, I know that that's not
39:05the most satisfactory answer, but you
39:08there there weren't the policies in
39:09place. I think it would be different if
39:10there were policies in place and law
39:12enforcement then chose to either not to
39:14ignore those policies or to take, you
39:17know, try to sidestep them. That would
39:18be
39:19>> Wasn't there a suggestion in the record
39:20that the officer who was involved here
39:22thought there should have been some
39:24additional checks or there would
39:26normally be additional checks and that
39:27wasn't present here? Isn't that the kind
39:29of lapse I'm talking about?
39:30>> Yeah. Yes. And um most notably um would
39:33be uh the the error or the oversight
39:37that really sticks out uh in my opinion
39:38it was the oversight and failing to
39:40record the phone call. Um but ultimately
39:43because we are here, you know, we are
39:44evaluating this case under the
39:46entrapment doctrine, enttrapment
39:47defense, we really need to evaluate
39:49whether these mistakes or these errors
39:51of law enforcement would amount to
39:53reprehensible conduct or impermissibly
39:55inducing conduct. And conduct needs uh
39:58to be reprehensible would have to be
39:59dangerous criminal or immoral acts. um
40:01which ultimately a a an oversight a
40:04failure a mistake doesn't reach that
40:07standard of true reprehensibility that u
40:09Michigan juristprudence requires for uh
40:11enttrapment to be established under that
40:13prong. Um and then also using the phone
40:16failure to record the phone call as an
40:18example um while undoubtedly an error
40:21that would have in no way induced or
40:24caused the defendant to go forward with
40:26committing the the child sexual abuse
40:28activity. He had no expectation that the
40:30call would or would not be recorded and
40:31he didn't know law enforce
40:34whether he was in fact induced on that
40:36call.
40:36>> We know what the stipulated facts state
40:39um and so the stipulated facts um are
40:41are fairly limited but they ultimately
40:44um there was no indication from um from
40:47the stipulated facts that there was
40:49really any further discussion of sex or
40:52any inducing or reprehensible conduct
40:53occurring on that phone call. So since
40:55we're limited to the record, ultimately
40:57we have no record support indicating
40:58that there was anything unoured
41:00happening.
41:00>> Would you agree though that the
41:01policies, whether they were in place for
41:03this conduct or not, the purpose of the
41:06policy and why the police would employ
41:09them is to invoid to avoid a situation
41:13where there's enttrapment where a claim
41:16is going to get thrown out. Right? So,
41:17don't do these things because, you know,
41:21you're we're gonna we're going to be
41:22held to have entrapped this person and
41:25this case goes away.
41:26>> Yes. And that's why I excuse me. I um I
41:31Yes. Those procedures generally are in
41:33place to protect against um these sort
41:35of uh arguments or issues arising and to
41:38protect the integrity of the
41:39investigation. Ultimately, in the
41:41present case, this it it would have been
41:44better if those policies and procedures
41:46were in place. they just quite frankly
41:48weren't at this point.
41:49>> Um
41:50>> growing pains aren't a great
41:52explanation, but ultimately this is what
41:53we we're left with. Generally speaking
41:56though, um uh different police
41:58departments and uh law enforcement
41:59organizations do have policies and
42:01procedures in place. I believe Jennese
42:02County does have policies and procedures
42:04in place and so those are ultimately
42:06there to protect the uh the integrity of
42:09the investigation and the rights of the
42:11um suspects and defendants. Um
42:13>> council, what so let's take these facts
42:15here. obviously you believe you know it
42:17didn't cross the line. Um what else
42:20would have to happen for this to be
42:21entrament.
42:23So I think um we've kind of touched on
42:25it a little bit but if the defendant
42:27instead of um if he had said oh I'm not
42:31you know I I don't want to mess with a
42:3315-year-old. No thanks. And they say oh
42:35no come on please. Like it's not that
42:37bad. Or they make were to make like a a
42:39promise that no actually it's legal.
42:41Don't worry. like any of these sort of
42:43things where basically they are actively
42:45engaging in um trying to pressure or
42:48trying to um there are there is case law
42:52stating to overcome the will but um
42:54basically
42:54>> but he so he said nope has to be 16,
42:58>> right?
42:58>> So why why was that not enough to say
43:01okay I've got to drop off now?
43:03>> Because that was the exact kind of
43:05conduct that's being investigated under
43:06the child sexual abusive activity
43:08statute because she was under the age of
43:1018.
43:12Okay. Um Okay. So, for for this case,
43:15>> for this case, yes.
43:16>> Fine. And um Okay. There's a whole bunch
43:18of cases CDAM has provided us where I
43:20don't believe it's the same conduct. So,
43:23and there are examples I think of the
43:25defendant saying, I you know, I don't
43:28think I'm interested, but then there's
43:30still engagement. I I know I'm putting
43:32you in a tough spot. What are your
43:33cases? So,
43:34>> no. And and that's okay. Um the again it
43:37is a very much because of the highly
43:39fact intensive nature it is a case- by
43:41case analysis. Um but ultimately it
43:43would be you know including the Gillette
43:47factors but not limited to looking at
43:49the conduct of law enforcement to see if
43:51they were engaging in active measures
43:54aimed at uh basically inducing or
43:57causing the person to commit the crime.
43:58And so it if you're you know in cases
44:01similar to this one where all they're
44:03doing is saying I'm 15 that is they're
44:06not engaging in any conduct that would
44:08actually induce or cause someone to
44:10commit the offense. In other
44:12circumstances if they're you know
44:13appeals to friendship um you know
44:15appeals to sympathy or even maybe like
44:18using um extremely low prices you could
44:20maybe make an argument for that. But
44:22those are ultimately um those are the uh
44:25circumstances surrounding the
44:27presentation of the mere opportunity um
44:29which ultimately was considered by both
44:30the trial court and
44:31>> so if the defendant here had said sorry
44:33not interested
44:34>> if he had said sorry not interested and
44:36law enforcement continued then yes that
44:37would be a much more in that would be a
44:41much clearer indication of uh entrament.
44:43>> Thank you. Right. If there are no
44:45further questions.
44:47>> Thank you.
44:47>> Thank you for your time
44:48>> and we used up all your rebuttals. So uh
44:51thank you uh for your arguments. The
44:53case will be submitted.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of 167920 People of MI v Jayneel Ravindra Jade by Michigan Supreme Court, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 7,837 words across 1,175 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.