## Facts

- Federal agents ran an ATF “stash house” robbery sting involving a fictional drug stash house.
- Leslie C. Mayfield was indicted for conspiring with a coworker (a government informant) and a purported drug courier (an undercover agent) to rob the stash house.
- Mayfield sought to present an entrapment defense at trial and requested an entrapment jury instruction.
- The government moved in limine to bar entrapment, arguing Mayfield lacked sufficient evidence of (1) government inducement and (2) lack of predisposition.
- Mayfield proffered a narrative asserting persistent pressure by the informant to recruit him and his repeated resistance to the scheme.
- The district court granted the motion in limine, barred the entrapment defense, and refused an entrapment instruction.
- A jury convicted Mayfield of multiple federal crimes arising from the conspiracy.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant is entitled to present an entrapment defense and receive an entrapment instruction when he offers “some evidence” of both government inducement and lack of predisposition.
2. Whether, on a pretrial motion in limine to preclude entrapment, the district court must accept the defendant’s factual proffer as true rather than weigh it against the government’s contrary account.

## Decision

- The en banc Seventh Circuit vacated Mayfield’s convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the district court erred by precluding entrapment and refusing an entrapment instruction.
- Mayfield’s proffer, taken as true at the in limine stage, supplied some evidence of both inducement (more than a mere opportunity) and lack of predisposition (not ready and willing before government contact).
- Because entrapment is generally a fact question for the jury, the district court improperly resolved factual disputes and credibility matters that belonged to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Entrapment applies when (1) the defendant was not predisposed to commit the charged crime before government involvement and (2) government conduct induced the crime.
- Predisposition (pre-intervention readiness and willingness) and inducement (government pressure or persuasion) are related but formally and temporally distinct elements.
- A defendant is entitled to an entrapment instruction if he produces some evidence supporting both elements; the threshold is modest.
- When the government seeks to preclude entrapment pretrial, the court must accept the defendant’s factual proffer as true and may not weigh competing accounts or assess credibility.
- Government inducement requires more than offering an opportunity and may include persistent solicitation, coercive or fraudulent tactics, threats, harassment, promises of reward, or appeals based on sympathy or friendship.

## Conclusion

The en banc Seventh Circuit held that Mayfield’s proffer met the “some evidence” threshold for both inducement and lack of predisposition, so the entrapment defense and instruction should have gone to the jury; the court therefore vacated the convictions and ordered a new trial.


United States v. Mayfield, 771 F.3d 417 (7th Cir. 2014) (en banc)