Fill and Sign the 2055 Public Authority Defenseusamdepartment of Justice Form

12.1 Entrapment The Defendant asserts "entrapment" concerning the offense charged in the indictment. A Defendant is " entrapped" when the Defendant is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that the Defendant had no previous intent to commit; and t he law as a matter of policy forbids a convict ion in such a case. How ever, there is no entrapment w here a Defendant is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agent s merely provide what appears t o be a favorable opportunity f or the Defendant to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend t o be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the Defendant. So, a Defendant would not be a victim of entrapment if you should find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Defendant, before contact w it h Government officers or their agents, was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity. On the other hand, if the evidence in the case leaves you with a reasonable doubt whether the Defendant had any intent t o commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, t hen it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty. ANNOTATIONS AND COMMENTS The former version of t his instruction (Special Instruct ion 9, Pattern Jury Instruct ions, Criminal Cases, Eleventh Circuit 1985) was expressly approved in United States v. Davis, 799 F.2d 1490, 1493-94 (11t h Cir. 1986). See also United States v. King, 73 F.3d 1564, 1569-71 (11th Cir. 1996). However, in Jacobson v . Unit ed States, 503 U.S. 540, 112 S.Ct. 1535, 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992), the Supreme Court held that the necessary predisposition of the Defendant must have exist ed before the Defendant w as approached by Government agents or cooperating informants, and in Unit ed States v. Brow n, 43 F.2d 618, 628 at n.8 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, U.S. , 116 S.Ct. 309, 133 L.Ed.2d 212 (1995), the Court of Appeals upheld the sufficiency and correct ness of t he former instruct ion but implied that clarification might be appropriate in the light of Jacobson. The present reformulation of the instruction on entrapment makes that clarification.