503 U.S. 540 (1992)
Keith Jacobson, a 56-year-old farmer living in Nebraska, ordered two magazines entitled Bare Boys I and Bare Boys II from a California adult bookstore in February 1984.1 The magazines contained photographs of nude preteen and teenage boys, which surprised Jacobson as he had expected images of young men 18 years or older.2
Within three months, Congress enacted the Child Protection Act of 1984, which made the receipt through the mails of sexually explicit depictions of children illegal.3 Postal inspectors located Jacobson's name on the mailing list of the bookstore that had sent him the magazines and began a series of mailings using fictitious organizations.4
From January 1985 through May 1987, the Postal Service and Customs Service contacted Jacobson using five fictitious organizations and a bogus pen pal named Carl Long.5 Jacobson responded to questionnaires from the American Hedonist Society and Heartland Institute for a New Tomorrow, indicating interest in preteen sex materials and teenage sexuality, and corresponded with the pen pal about his preferences for male-male items involving young men in their late teens and early twenties.6
In March 1987, Jacobson placed an order with a fictitious Canadian company for photographs of young boys engaging in sex, though the order was never filled. In May 1987, he ordered the magazine Boys Who Love Boys from the Far Eastern Trading Company, which depicted young boys in sexual activities, and was arrested following a controlled delivery.7
Jacobson was indicted on September 24, 1987, for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)(A).8 Following a jury trial, he was convicted, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.9
Whether the government established beyond a reasonable doubt that Jacobson was predisposed to receive child pornography through the mails before government agents first contacted him?10
Where the Government has induced an individual to break the law and the defense of entrapment is at issue, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by Government agents.11
No. The government failed to carry its burden under the rule.12 Jacobson's February 1984 order of the Bare Boys magazines was lawful at the time it was placed and occurred before any government contact.13 His later questionnaire responses and correspondence expressed personal inclinations toward preteen sex materials and teenage sexuality but did not demonstrate a readiness to commit the specific crime of receiving child pornography through the mails.14 The government devoted twenty-six months of repeated mailings through fictitious entities before Jacobson placed the May 1987 order.15
The evidence therefore shows that any predisposition was the product of the government's prolonged attention rather than an independent disposition existing before the first contact in January 1985.16
The government did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Jacobson was predisposed to receive child pornography through the mails before government agents first contacted him.17
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, And Justice Scalia (as To Part I)
Justice O’Connor dissented on the ground that Jacobson ordered child pornography both times the government offered it and showed ready enthusiasm without any face-to-face coaxing or appeals to sympathy. She maintained that predisposition is properly measured at the moment the government first suggests the crime rather than before any contact occurs.18 O’Connor argued that the jury could reasonably infer predisposition from Jacobson's two prompt orders and accompanying notes requesting further materials.19
She criticized the majority for effectively requiring the government to prove the defendant was predisposed to violate the law knowingly, an element not required by the statute itself.20 O’Connor also warned that the new approach could hamper legitimate sting operations by allowing every defendant to claim that preliminary government materials created the predisposition.21