U.S. v. Mayfield

In prosecution on charge of conspiracy to rob drug stash-house, Dist. Ct. erred in granting govt.’s motion in limine to prevent defendant from presenting entrapment defense. Dist. Ct. improperly made credibility finding when granting instant request, and defendant otherwise presented enough evidence to justify giving entrapment instruction to jury, where defendant testified that govt. informant: (1) appealed to his friendship when requesting that he assist him in instant staged robbery; (2) gave money to defendant in order to create debt that he knew defendant could not repay; (3) exploited said debt by alluding to his status as gang member; and (4) repeatedly pestered defendant over substantial period of time. Also, although defendant had extensive prior criminal history, he presented sufficient evidence with respect to his lack of predisposition to commit instant robbery given his repeated rejections of informant’s request. Fact that defendant subsequently participated in planning of robbery and in recruiting of other members of alleged conspiracy did not require different result. (Dissent filed.)