'To Catch a Predator' case thrown out, Judge ruled entrapment

NY Daily News

A California judge tossed out a case against a former Navy man caught in a sting orchestrated by the NBC program in part because the show's producers engage in entrapment.

I don't know that this is necessarily stunning, as I always wondered how closed to the entrapment line Chris Hansen, the producers and NBC actually were, but this case will certainly set a precedent in future cases and perhaps even cases that already have gone to trial.

The case was that of Joseph Roisman, an ex sailor who was discharged due to his behavior as shwn on the television show. Apparently he travelled over 100 miles by bus to meet what he thought was a 13 year old girl, as shown n the program.

It appears that the defense argued that Roisman did not believe that the girl was only 13 'because of her sophisticated and mature messages.' This line of defense along with the fact that it was the shows producer that initaiated the sexual conversation was enough fr the judge to throw the case out.

Do I think that Roisman is morally guilty here, yes I do. There is no reason to travel a distance like that, for any reason, to meet a girl who identified herself as 13 at a hotel. Was he guilty of a crime? The judge thinks not and after reading this article, I must agree, as much as it pains me to.

The secong thought I have on this case is the possibility for other convictions to be overturned. Defense attorneys are going to be beating down the courthouse doors with their appeals now thanks to this case. Also can we say civil suits? Every overturned conviction with probably be accompanieed with a sizable civil suit. The convicted, rightfully or wrongfully, only appeared on television because of this show. If it is deemed that all these cases are indeed entrapment, each and every one of those convicted will have a civil rights case to pursue.

This could potentially cost NBC, Hansen and the show a considerable amount of money, as well as allowing those who actually are predators back onto the street. Dangerus situation indeed.

Why is a TV show even allowed to front for Law Enforcement?

I have no pity on these fools...Other than an obvious mental illness on some.

But to allow a TV Show with no training on entrapment or guide lines.

To conduct such a serious investigation.

This is the predictable outcome...

Nobody wants these guys off the street more than myself.

But even the least of us have rights.

In Alabama, entrapment can be ruled if the State cannot produce evidence that the defendant was actively committing this crime before they began their investigation. In other words, if it can be proven that you are already selling drugs prior to their investigation, they can and will set you up. My point is, that many of those already convicted, may have prior convictions, charges, or other evidence to show that they probably would have still been committing subsequent crimes had they not been set up.
That number will be relative to the number of convicts who may successfully appeal their convictions.

So they couldn't convict him. I'm quite sure they still showed his face. I wonder if his life was still ruined as a result. They still air these shows regularly, on MSNBC. I think they are even in syndication

reply to post by whyamIhere


Yes, it was wrong for a t.v. show to get involved and botch things up, but now this guy is a target for future cases. They will watch him like a hawk, and if he is "addicted" to this behavior, he will eventually get caught. Still, I don't agree with civilians pulling that kinda sting on their own, and I believe they should be responsible for re-compensating legal costs of the State and the Defendant. Tax-payers should not be held responsible...

reply to post by whyamIhere


When the show began airing they did not have law enforcement involved but added it after viewer comments expressed questions about why they didn't.

I too thought this a case of entrapment from the beginning. You need more to convict someone than just them showing up even though they all are obviously guilty.

clearly the evidence is in the chat logs that the crime was being commited prior to the entrapment


a.k.a - sending illicit photos to minors

sending the photos to a agent who is not 13 though .



would it make you guys feel better if the person the predator was talking to was a real 13 year old girl ? When sending the photos and the things he would like to do to him or her?



would that justify this ?


i don't believe there is any case of entrapment here

nbc helped out alot of people by airing it and woke up many to the dangers of it .

Im sure many predators have thought twice about the consequences after watching date line


at the end of the day is it not about childrens safety and education for the masses?


what if it was not entrapment and it was a real 13 year old girl ? would you perfer nbc never have stepped in and those girls and boys violated ?

Atleast NBC tried to do something positive with there media power and bringing in pedophiles ?

what have the rest of you arm chair champions of justice done lately?

reply to post by seedofchucky



I'm not saying this should not be done by trained professionals.

When you let others do LE's job. It's predictable for a court to throw it out.

I wish LE would do these stings more often.

I would be remiss not to point out there are two sides to a chat.

Also, you can't cloud the issue of entrapment because we all hate the crime.

I totally understand your hatred of these obviously messed up individuals.

When we do catch these guys....It needs to be air tight.

Or, I can see many other convictions getting tossed in California.

Originally posted by seedofchucky
clearly the evidence is in the chat logs that the crime was being commited prior to the entrapment


a.k.a - sending illicit photos to minors

sending the photos to a agent who is not 13 though .



would it make you guys feel better if the person the predator was talking to was a real 13 year old girl ? When sending the photos and the things he would like to do to him or her?



would that justify this ?


i don't believe there is any case of entrapment here

nbc helped out alot of people by airing it and woke up many to the dangers of it .

Im sure many predators have thought twice about the consequences after watching date line


at the end of the day is it not about childrens safety and education for the masses?


what if it was not entrapment and it was a real 13 year old girl ? would you perfer nbc never have stepped in and those girls and boys violated ?

Atleast NBC tried to do something positive with there media power and bringing in pedophiles ?

what have the rest of you arm chair champions of justice done lately?

As a purely emotional response, you could could not be more correct, with the exception of when you stated that the evidence exists. It states in the article that the questioned 'chatting' was actualy initiated by the undercover producer. I can not say what is or isnt in the log, just as no one who has not seen them can.

This happens to be a rare case where there were violations on both sides of the ball. We can not violate the rights of even the worst criminals withut risking thge rights of you and I.

After all as the historical jurist William Blackstone stated: "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

reply to post by youdidntseeme



Well said...

This is tragic all the way around.

If we can't see the chat log?

We know the show sends the guys pictures of the girls.

Bottom line is, the show exposed how creepy people can be.

Now let the professionals take it from here.

These predator's need to taken off the streets.

But not by Chris Wallace...

Just so people know. The tv show uses the help of the military for recording chat logs and using Tor. So its funny how they busted one of there own and he gets off.

I agree with the Judge on this one. How do you have a crime against a child, when there is no child?

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I agree with the Judge on this one. How do you have a crime against a child, when there is no child?

It will be intersting to see the fallout from this case in the coming months. How may civil overturned convictions and civil suits will follow?