◆ SpookStack

ee] epee 3. Entrapment of Lederer. Defendant Lederer, the only one to request an entrapment charge to the jury, argues entrapment as a matter of law. To the extent that his argument focuses upon "objec- tive entrapment", it has been covered above in section VI-A-1, supra. However, since entrapment was also a jury ‘ issue for Lederer, his argument of "entrapment as a matter of law" can also. be viewed as an assertion that on the evidence before the jury no reasonable juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Lederer was predisposed to commit the crime. Lederer argues that the government's proper role was limited to detection of persons who were already involved in criminality, that Lederer's crime and the intent to commit it originated with the government agents, not defen- dant Lederer, and that "absent the temptation offered by the government agents, Lederer might not have committed the crime." Lederer's memorandum at 7. The esserice of this claim is that the government's evidence, which estab- lished no more than criminal conduct on this one occasion, was legally insufficient to meet the government's burden of proving that Lederer was "predisposed". The flaw in Lederer's argument, however, is demon- strated by the careful exposition by Judge Learned Hand | atte