The court of appeals affirmed a district court judgment. The court held that evidence that an undercover government agent promised a potential payout from a proposed robbery was not grounds for claiming entitlement to a jury instruction on government entrapment.
In an effort to identify dangerous individuals with violent proclivities, agents of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) opened an undercover storefront operation under the guise of a functioning tattoo shop. The undercover agents were looking for dangerous individuals with violent proclivities. Upon identifying such individuals, the agents offered them opportunities to commit crimes. Those crimes were intended to be dangerous enough that the average law abiding citizen would decline the offer but with a sufficient reward that a person with criminal proclivities might accept.
