5th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Criminal) 1.30

The defendant asserts that he [she] was a victim of entrapment.

Where a person has no previous intent or purpose to violate the law but is induced or

persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime, that person is a victim

of entrapment, and the law as a matter of policy forbids that person’s conviction in such a case.

On the other hand, where a person already has the readiness and willingness to break the

law, the mere fact that government agents provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity is

not entrapment. For example, it is not entrapment for a government agent to pretend to be someone

else and to offer either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful

transaction.

If you should find beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in the case that, before

anything at all occurred respecting the alleged offense involved in this case, the defendant was

ready and willing to commit such a crime as charged in the indictment, whenever opportunity was

afforded, and that government officers or their agents did no more than offer the opportunity, then

you should find that the defendant is not a victim of entrapment.

If the evidence in the case should leave you with a reasonable doubt whether the defendant

had the previous intent or purpose to commit an offense of the character charged, apart from the

inducement or persuasion of some officer or agent of the government, then it is your duty to find

the defendant not guilty.

The burden is on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant:

1. was not induced to commit the offense by a government agent; or

2. had a predisposition or intention to commit that offense prior to being approached

by a government agent.

You are instructed that a paid informer is an “agent” of the government for purposes of

this instruction.