Welcome to Spodek Law Group. If you found this page, chances are someone you trusted turned out to be working for the government. A friend, a business associate, maybe someone you barely knew who suddenly showed up with an opportunity that seemed too good to pass up. And now you are facing criminal charges for something you believe you never would have done without their persistent pushing. Our goal here is to give you the reality of the entrapment defense - not the version law school professors teach, not the simplified explanation other websites offer, but the actual truth about what happens when you walk into federal court claiming a confidential informant set you up.
The thing is, almost everyone who gets caught in a sting operation believes they have an entrapment defense. Almost everyone believes that the aggressive tactics, the repeated pressure, the manipulation they experienced proves they were trapped. And almost everyone is wrong about how this defense actually works. The legal standard for entrapment is designed to fail. Not because the courts are unfair necessarily, but because the test focuses on the wrong question entirely. It does not ask what the government did to you. It asks who you were before they ever made contact.
Here is where most people's understanding completely falls apart. You might think proving the CI pressured you repeatedly would be enough. You might think documenting their aggressive behavior would win your case. But federal courts use what practitioners call the subjective test - and that test looks directly at you, not at them. The question becomes whether you had a predisposition to commit this crime before the government ever reached out. And prosecutors get to use your entire life history to prove that predisposition exists.
What Nobody Tells You About The Entrapment Defense
Heres the thing that defense attorneys know but rarely say out loud: raising an entrapment defense is often the single worst strategic decision you can make. Not because your trapped - you probably were. Not because the CI didnt manipulate you - they probably did. But because the moment you claim entrapment, you open a door that should have stayed locked.
Under normal circumstances, prosecutors cannot introduce evidence of your general criminal tendency. Thats basic rule 404 stuff - prior bad acts are inadmissable because they prejudice the jury. But when you raise entrapment, you put your predisposition at issue. And suddenly everything changes. Every prior charge - even ones that were dismissed - becomes fair game. Every text message. Every conversation anyone remembers where you talked about doing something similiar. The prosecution gets to parade your entire history in front of the jury.
In Harris v. State, a Florida case from 2019, the defendant tried to keep out prior drug dealing allegations. Those charges had been completly dismissed. Didnt matter. The court ruled they were admissable if he raised entrapment. Harris faced an impossible choice: raise the defense he beleived in and watch the jury hear about everything hed ever done, or abandon the defense entirely to protect his record. He chose to not testify. He chose to not raise entrapment. Thats how bad the backfire risk is.
The Predisposition Test: Why Its Not About What They Did To You
OK so heres were things get really frustrating. The legal test for entrapment has two elements. First, government inducement - did they encourage you to commit the crime? Second, lack of predisposition - were you ready and willing before they ever showed up?
The inducement part is almost always easy to prove. Of course the CI induced you. Thats literaly there job. They showed up with an opportunity, they made it attractive, they pushed until you agreed. But heres the kicker - none of that matters if the government can show predisposition.
And predisposition is were the system destroys defendants.
Courts have ruled that "ready commission" - basicly agreeing quickly to an opportunity - is itself evidence of predisposition. Think about that. If the CI approaches you and you agree fast, prosecutors argue that proves you were ready and willing all along. Your quick agreement becomes proof against you.
But wait - what if you resisted for a long time? What if you said no repeatedly before finaly giving in? You might think thats strong evidence of entrapment. Courts see it differently. They'll argue that your eventual agreement, despite resistance, shows the government didnt implant the idea - they just offered an opportunity you eventualy took on your own.
See the problem? Quick agreement = predisposed. Long resistance followed by agreement = government didnt create the desire. There is literaly no winning interpretation under the subjective test.
How Your Entrapment Claim Becomes The Prosecutions Best Weapon
Let that sink in for a moment. The defense your raising to protect yourself becomes the prosecutions most powerful weapon against you.
This is critical to understand before you ever mention entrapment to anyone: once you put predisposition at issue, the floodgates open. The prosecution gets what they call greater latitude to present evidence of prior simular conduct. Things that would normaly be excluded become suddenly relevant.
Heres what can come in once you claim entrapment:
- Prior arrests for similiar crimes, even if you werent convicted
- Dismissed charges that never went anywhere
- Statements you made to friends or associates about wanting to do something like this
- Text messages, social media posts, anything that suggests criminal inclination
- Testimony from people who knew you before the sting operation
In one federal case, the defendant raised entrapment for a drug trafficking charge. The government responded by bringing in witnesses who testified about drug conversations from years earlier. They introduced evidence of prior drug involvement that had never resulted in charges. By the time they were done, the jury saw the defendant as a career criminal who was just looking for his next opportunity. The "I was set up" narrative got completly buried.
Todd Spodek has seen this pattern in hundreds of cases. Clients come in absolutely certain they have an entrapment defense. They describe the pressure, the manipulation, the way the CI pushed and pushed until they finaly agreed. And then we have to have the hard conversation about what happens when you actualy raise that defense in court.
The CI Who Set You Up Has Government Permission To Do This
This part might make you angry. The confidential informant who set you up wasnt just allowed to do what they did - they were specifically authorized to use tactics that sworn law enforcement officers cannot.
DOJ internal guidelines explicitly permit confidential informants to use "more persuasive tactics" then actual agents can use. Read that again. The behavior that feels like entrapment to you is built directly into the system as acceptable conduct.
Between 2011 and 2014, FBI informants were authorized to commit more then 22,800 crimes. Not mistakes. Not unauthorized conduct. Officially sanctioned criminal activity. The government literaly gave permission for informants to break the law as part of there work.
Heres the reality: CIs are not held to the same standards as sworn officers. They can be more aggressive. They can be more manipulative. They can push harder and longer then any FBI agent could legally push. And as long as there handler approved it, everything they did to trap you is perfectly legal from the governments perspective.
The CI who set you up is likely walking free right now while you face years in prison for the same conduct they encouraged you to engage in. Thats not a bug in the system - thats how its designed to work.
Why CIs Will Say Anything To Make You Cooperate
Heres were it gets even darker. Most confidential informants arent doing this out of civic duty. There working off there own charges.
Approximately 60% of drug defendants cooperate as informants in exchange for reduced sentences. The CI who targeted you probably got arrested themselves. They got offered a deal: help us make cases against other people, and well reduce your sentence. Maybe dismiss the charges entirely.
But heres the catch - there deal only works if they produce arrests. No arrests means no sentence reduction. There entire freedom depends on getting you to say yes.
Think about what that means for reliability. The National Registry of Exonerations has found that nearly 20% of cases later cleared by DNA evidence involved convictions based largley on informant testimony. Jailhouse snitch testimony is "notoriously unreliable" according to researchers, because informants are "strongly motivated to say what the prosecution wants."
The CI talking to you has every incentive to exagerate. To lie. To push harder then they should. To manufacture evidence if necessary. There not just trying to help law enforcement - there desperatly trying to save themselves.
And yet courts continue to allow CI testimony with minimal scrutiny. Federal judges give cautionary instructions to juries about informant reliability, but those instructions rarely overcome the damage of hearing a witness claim you eagerly participated in criminal activity.
Jacobson v. United States: The Case That Almost Never Happens
Legal professionals often point to Jacobson v. United States as proof that entrapment defenses can succeed. What they dont tell you is that Jacobson is basicly the only entrapment case defendants have ever won at the Supreme Court level. One case. In over 30 years.
Keith Jacobson was a 56-year-old Nebraska farmer. Government agencies spent 26 months - more than two full years - trying to get him to order child pornography through the mail. They created four fake organizations. They sent him repeated solicitations. They manufactured an elaborate scheme to wear down his resistance.
After two and a half years of constant pressure, Jacobson finaly made a purchase. He was immediately arrested.
The Supreme Court overturned his conviction in a 5-4 decision. They ruled the government had implanted the criminal design in his mind through there persistent efforts. But notice what made Jacobson unusual:
- He had no prior criminal record except a DUI from 1958
- The government pressure lasted 26 months - extraordinarily long
- No other illicit material was found in his home
- He had engaged in no prior illegal activity related to the charge
Now look at your case. Did the CI pressure you for 26 months? Do you have a completly clean record with no prior conduct even remotely related to the charge? Is your situation so unusual that five Supreme Court justices would find it compelling?
Lower courts have spent the decades since Jacobson distinguishing it. They find predisposition in almost every case. The Jacobson defense works once in a generation, and practitioners know it.
As Todd Spodek explains to clients facing sting operation charges, Jacobson represents the absolute outer limit of what entrapment can accomplish. If your facts look even slightly different - and they almost always do - you cannot count on the same result.
What Defense Attorneys Actually Consider Before Raising Entrapment
Knowing everything above, how do criminal defense attorneys at Spodek Law Group aproach entrapment cases? The answer might suprise you.
Before raising entrapment, we ask several critical questions:
First, whats in your background? Every prior charge matters. Every dismissed case matters. Every conversation you had that prosecutors might discover matters. If theres anything in your history that suggests you were open to this kind of activity, entrapment becomes extremly dangerous.
Second, how quickly did you agree? If the CI approached you and you were making deals within days, thats going to be presented as ready commission evidence. The faster you moved, the worse this looks.
Third, do you have witnesses who can testify about your character before the sting? Showing you were an "unwary innocent" requires actualy proving it. Thats harder then it sounds.
Fourth, what evidence exists of the CIs tactics? If we can show extraordinarily persistent pressure over a long time period, we have more to work with. But most stings are relativley quick operations.
Fifth, are there better defenses available? Sometimes challenging the elements of the crime, attacking witness credibility, or negotiating a plea makes more strategic sense then gambling on entrapment.
The entrapment defense is not something we raise lightly. Its a calculated risk with serious downsides. Many cases that look like entrapment on the surface become prosecution gold once the prior acts door opens.
What Actually Works When A CI Set You Up
If entrapment is so dangerous, what defenses actualy help when youve been targeted by a confidential informant?
Several strategies can be more effective:
Challenge the CIs credibility. CIs often have extensive criminal histories, financial motivations, and histories of unreliability. We can dig into there background - what charges are they facing? What were they promised? Have they lied in previous cases?
Attack the evidence chain. Was evidence handled properly? Were recordings complete or edited? Did the CI exagerate or misrepresent conversations?
Contest the elements. Can the government actualy prove every element of the charged offense beyond reasonable doubt? Sometimes there are weaknesses in there case that dont require raising entrapment at all.
Negotiate strategicly. In some cases, the best outcome comes from leveraging the questionable CI involvement to negotiate a better plea agreement. Prosecutors know CI cases can be messy - that awareness can create bargaining room.
Consider sentencing factors. If conviction is likely, demonstrating minimal role, lack of criminal history, and the CIs aggressive conduct can influence sentencing even if it doesnt result in acquittal.
Investigate the CI thoroughly. Confidential informants often have histories that undermine there credibility. How many cases have they worked? Have previous defendants challenged there testimony? Were they promised specific benefits that create bias? These questions matter.
Document everything from day one. The sooner you start building a defense, the more options you have. Witnesses memories fade. Evidence disappears. Waiting makes everything harder.
The worst thing you can do is assume entrapment is your only option and raise it without considering the consequences. That decision can be irreversable.
The Timeline Nobody Prepares You For
If your currently dealing with charges involving a confidential informant, heres what the process looks like:
First 48 hours: Your probably in shock. Everything you thought you knew about your friend, associate, or contact has been shattered. The urge to immediately claim "I was set up" is overwhelming.
First two weeks: Discovery begins. You start seeing the evidence against you - recordings, texts, witness statements. The governments case becomes clearer.
First month: Strategic decisions must be made. What defenses are viable? Is entrapment actualy your best option, or does it create more problems then it solves?
Pre-trial period: If entrapment is raised, the prosecution begins its predisposition investigation. They dig through your history. They interview people who knew you. They build the character case against you.
Trial: The jury hears everything. Your prior acts. The CIs testimony. The recordings. They decide whether you were an unwary innocent or someone looking for an opportunity.
After: Whatever happens, this has changed your life permanantly.
The Call You Need To Make
Heres the bottom line. A confidential informant may very well have set you up. The pressure may have been real. The manipulation may have been exactly as bad as you remember. And none of that automaticly means entrapment is your best defense.
The federal conviction rate exceeds 93%. The government dosent bring cases it expects to lose. By the time your charged, prosecutors have already calculated how to defeat your defenses - including entrapment.
What you need right now is someone who understands both sides of this equation. Someone who knows when entrapment can work and when it will destroy your case. Someone whos seen the prior acts door open and watched clients realize to late what theyve unleashed.
At Spodek Law Group, we handle these cases differently. We dont tell you what you want to hear. We tell you what actualy happens. We calculate the real risks. And we build strategies based on what wins cases - not what sounds good in a first meeting.
The clock started when you learned about these charges. Every day that passes is a day prosecutors are building there case. Every conversation your having could potentialy be used against you.
Call us at 212-300-5196. The consultation is confidential. We can review your specific situation and give you an honest assessment of what defenses make sense - and which ones might make things worse.
Your "I was set up" story might be completly true. But turning that truth into an actual defense requires understanding the system your up against. The prosecutors have done this before. The CI knows how to play there role. And the legal framework is tilted in ways you wouldnt expect. Thats exactly why you need someone whos navigated this before. Thats what we do.
