Entrapment by estoppel jury instruction florida

In Giffen the Second Circuit considered whether, in the absence of evidence sufficient to entitle the defendant to an entrapment by estoppel jury instruction, whether that same evidence could be admitted for an alternative purpose. Specifically, the Second Circuit addressed whether such evidence could be admitted under the umbrella of "negation Appellant raises several issues on appeal, but only one warrants discussion: whether the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on Appellant's requested entrapment-by-estoppel defense. 1 Appellant bases his request for an entrapment-by-estoppel jury instruction on two factual scenarios presented at trial. Entrapment Entrapment is a practice in which a law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a "crime" that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit. [1] On April 20, 2012, in the Middle District of Florida, a Grand Jury indicted Votrobek for conspiracy to distribute Oxycodone and Alprazolam not for a legitimate medical purpose and conspiracy to launder money. After a fifteen-day trial, however, a jury found Votrobek not guilty. Votrobek's respite from conviction was fleeting. On appeal, she argued that the district court's refusal to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment by estoppel deprived her of a fair trial. The Tenth Circuit concluded defendant was not entitled to an entrapment-by-estoppel instruction because it would have been unreasonable to infer the legality of her conduct from the payment of the In the case of persons who are not initially under suspicion and unlikely to commit a certain crime, a decision from 1999 (18th of November, BGH 1 StR 221/99, in German) stated that entrapment of such persons violates the right to a fair trial, and the punishment for the committed offence may thus be reduced. United Kingdom (a) (1) A defendant intending to claim a defense of actual or believed exercise of public authority on behalf of a law enforcement or Federal intelligence agency at the time of the alleged offense shall. . .serve upon the attorney for the government a written notice of such intention. . . . of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. Triana went to trial, and a jury convicted him on Counts 1 through 4. Triana now raises three issues on appeal. First, he asserts that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the jury to consider his proposed jury instruction raising an entrapment by estoppel theory of defense. Entrapment by estoppel "applies to a defendant who reasonably relies on the assurance of a government official that specified conduct will not violate the law." United States v. Alvarado, 808 F.3d 474, 484 (11th Cir. 2015). Filing Per Curiam OPINION filed: The district court s judgments are AFFIRMED; decision not for publication. Danny J. Boggs, Circuit Judge; David W. McKeague, Circuit Judge and William O. Bertelsman, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. At trial, Triana submitted a proposed jury instruction, which raised an entrapment by estoppel defense for Counts 1 through 5. 1 Triana's based his proposed instruction on his assertion that there was ample evidence to show that because he was consistently forthcoming about his involvement in both Footcare and Podiatry Admin., he should not be The panel held that the district court did not err