I love the entrapment defense. It’s one of my favorite tools in a criminal case, and when it works, it works beautifully. But I need to be honest with you up front: this defense is not for everyone. We use it most often in drug trafficking cases and certain sex crime cases, and it only succeeds under a narrow set of facts.
Here’s the one-sentence version. Entrapment argues that the defendant had no predisposition to commit the crime, wasn’t ready to do it, and the government encouraged or induced them into doing it anyway. In other words, entrapment says the government actually created the crime, rather than doing its actual job, which is detecting crime that’s already happening.
Facing Drug Trafficking or Sex Crime Charges Involving an Informant or Sting?
Not every sting operation holds up legally. If a confidential informant or undercover officer pushed you into something you weren’t already inclined to do, entrapment may be a real defense. Call John Guidry at (407) 423-1117 to find out.
What Florida Law Actually Requires
Florida codified the entrapment defense in Florida Statute § 777.201, and the Florida Supreme Court laid out exactly how it works in Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993). The analysis happens in two stages, and understanding both stages is essential to understanding why this defense fails for most defendants who try to raise it.
First, the defendant has to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a government agent induced them to commit the crime. That’s usually the easy part. If a confidential informant or undercover officer set up the deal, supplied the contact, or pushed the transaction forward, inducement is often straightforward to establish.
Second, once the defendant shows inducement, the burden shifts to the state. Prosecutors then have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime before and independent of any government involvement. This is where almost every entrapment case actually gets decided.
Why Predisposition Destroys So Many Entrapment Claims
Predisposition means the defendant was ready and willing to commit the crime without persuasion, just waiting for the opportunity. If the state can prove that, the entrapment defense collapses entirely, no matter how aggressively the government pushed the transaction along.
Here’s where it gets dangerous for defendants. The state is allowed to introduce evidence of a defendant’s criminal history once entrapment is raised, specifically to prove predisposition. If you have a history of selling or buying drugs, that history becomes fair game. If a wiretap captures you bragging about doing the same thing in the past, that recording becomes some of the most damaging evidence the state can use. You can’t credibly argue the government created a crime you’d never have committed when you’re on tape admitting you’d done it before.
This is exactly why I tell clients up front: for entrapment to work, you need a genuinely clean record. Not a mostly clean record. Not a record with one old conviction you can explain away. Clean. The moment the state finds prior conduct that contradicts your claim of no predisposition, the defense weakens dramatically, and in many cases it falls apart completely.
When the Defense Actually Works
Entrapment succeeds in situations where a defendant has no relevant criminal history, where the government did most of the work setting up the transaction, and where the defendant showed real reluctance before eventually going along with it. Courts have found entrapment, for example, when law enforcement supplied every instrument of the crime and walked a defendant through how to commit it, essentially teaching someone with no prior involvement how to break the law for the purpose of then arresting them.
That’s a meaningfully different scenario than a defendant with an established pattern of similar conduct who simply got caught one more time, even if an informant facilitated that particular transaction. The line between those two situations is exactly what determines whether entrapment is a viable defense or a strategy that will backfire.
If You Want More Related Content
If you’d like to dig deeper into this topic, I’ve covered the broader question of when and how the government oversteps in building a criminal case, including the role informants and undercover tactics play in drug investigations.
Watch: Should You Talk to the Cops?
I’ve also written about how predisposition and prior conduct can shape a defense strategy, which connects directly to why a clean record is so critical when raising entrapment.
Read: https://jgcrimlaw.com/articles/floridas-dhsmv-picks-a-fight-with-county-court-judges/
John’s Takeaways
- Entrapment requires two things: government inducement and a lack of predisposition. Florida Statute § 777.201 and Munoz v. State, 629 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1993) lay out exactly how that two-part test works.
- The state can use your criminal history against you once entrapment is raised. Predisposition evidence, including prior conduct and wiretap statements, becomes fair game the moment you claim the government created the crime.
- A wiretap or recording where you admit to similar past conduct can destroy an entrapment defense entirely. You can’t argue you’d never have done this when you’re on tape saying you have.
- This defense only works with a genuinely clean record. A defendant with prior involvement in similar crimes faces a steep uphill climb proving lack of predisposition beyond what the state can rebut.
- When it works, entrapment results in a full acquittal. It’s one of the most powerful defenses available, but only for the narrow set of defendants whose record actually supports it.
Think You Might Have an Entrapment Defense? Let’s Find Out.
I’ve been evaluating entrapment claims in drug trafficking and sex crime cases across Central Florida since 1993. Whether this defense works for you depends entirely on the facts of your record and how the investigation unfolded. I represent clients across Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake, Brevard, and Volusia County.
If you believe law enforcement induced you into a crime you wouldn’t otherwise have committed, give my office a call. Let’s go through your record and the facts honestly before deciding whether this defense fits your case.
John Guidry — (407) 423-1117
About John Guidry II
John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 33 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.
John Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.
Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.
When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.