Despite a number of compelling entrapment claims in post-9/11 US terrorism cases, these claims have nearly always failed. While previous research suggests possible reasons for this almost complete failure of the entrapment defense, no research has yet systematically examined the mechanisms responsible for this result. Drawing on thirty-seven interviews with individuals with in-depth knowledge of particular cases, as well as textual analysis of court decisions and quantitative analysis of a terrorism database, this article identifies several factors contributing to the entrapment defense’s failure. These include strategic choices by defendants to plead guilty or use other defenses, prosecutorial misconduct, evidence manipulation by informants and police, deficient entrapment doctrines, and procedural irregularities. Consistent with the general trend of counterterrorism law enhancing government power while reducing accountability, the multiple opportunities for authorities to manipulate the legal process leave defendants with little realistic chance of acquittal on entrapment grounds.

中文翻译：

---

解释 9/11 后美国恐怖主义案件中诱捕防御（几乎完全）失败的原因

尽管在 9/11 后美国恐怖主义案件中有许多令人信服的诱捕声明，但这些声明几乎总是失败。虽然之前的研究表明了诱捕防御几乎完全失败的可能原因，但还没有研究系统地检查导致这一结果的机制。本文通过对对特定案件有深入了解的个人的 37 次采访，以及对法庭判决的文本分析和对恐怖主义数据库的定量分析，确定了导致诱捕防御失败的几个因素。这些包括被告认罪或使用其他辩护的战略选择、起诉不当行为、线人和警察操纵证据、不完善的诱捕原则以及程序违规行为。