United States v. Donald Podolsky

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the circumstances were “fairly remote” from the concerns which had motivated Congress to enact the federal arson statute
• noting that post-Arc/ier cases cast doubt on any “independent principle ... that forbids the ‘manufacture’ of federal jurisdiction in circumstances not constituting entrapment and not canceling any element of the crime such as criminal intent”
• noting the complexity and multijurisdictional nature of arson and the difficulties of prosecuting at state level
• “we are not the only court to have described [Archer'] as a case of virtual entrapment”
• “no conviction has ever been set aside on the sole basis of the principle announced by [Archer ], even in the Second Circuit,” and the vitality of the “manufactured” jurisdiction principle is in doubt
• collecting cases which have distinguished Archer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).