United States Ninth Circuit

A state trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on an entrapment defense, in a second trial on drug sale charges, amounted to prejudicial constitutional error where evidence presented at a first trial warranted such an instruction.

Appellate Information

• Argued 02/14/2002
• Decided 12/24/2002
• Published 12/24/2002

Judges

• Before FERGUSON, TASHIMA, and Graber, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Jeffrey S. Kross, Oakland, CA, for the petitioner-appellee., J. Michael Lehmann (argued), Corey J. Robins, Office of the Attorney General of the State of California, Los Angeles, CA, for the respondent-appellant.