entrapment defense who was arrested for conspiring to rob a fake stash house and the entire premise of this case was a set up there was no stash house there were no drugs and there was never never any danger that there would be a robbery  what there was instead was sort of a fake million dollar opportunity created by the government complete with an inside man that would make everything just a little bit easier this was no ordinary opportunity he was designed to be a tantalizing offer and it was designed to get people to and there's nothing in the record showing that these are the normal circumstances of the real stash house robbery there's nothing in the record that this is the normal way to get into dealing drugs and the result of this improper use means that i think nathan ward who had for the secondary secondary and it was entitled to plead a defense of the traveling back and i don't do it and so if you're if you're advising mr ward before trial you have to make a decision about whether to pursue an entrapment defense one question you might ask is has the seventh circuit ever actually found a valid derivative or vicarious entrapment defense and i think in this strategy right you have to you have to admit the wrongdoing and in this case who would have put the details of mr ward's shootings of four people in front of the jury right respectfully are we would disagree first of all the supreme court in matthew said that you don't actually have to admit they're wrong that's a strategic decision the count that counsel could or could not whether to admit it or not but there is no requirement you actually admit the wrongdoing and secondly i don't think that the his prior convictions stash house in order to acquire drugs and start dealing drugs that is categorically different than getting in a fight twenty years ago and so i don't think that those convictions would have come out and in addition to that that concern was not necessarily with not necessarily before his counsel at the time he made the decision not to submit a proffer and to sort of reject the travel to france for example he could have submitted a proffer to try and raise the travel to france and if the court had allowed to proceed he could have moved eliminate to exclude those proclamations and then he would have known what was going to happen and you could have made a strategic decision at that point but there was no cost to the adequate reason to simply give up right off the bat entrapment defense and instead pursue what amounted to him what amounted to him claiming determining whether a decision is objectively unreasonable it's a relative decision and you look at what the attorney did you and the arguments that they could have raised and if your if the attorney failed to raise with her objective least superior arguments but that's the effective assistance of counsel and so in this situation we look at what words attorney did raise again he argued to the jury both in opening and closing and all the work had spoken with her own record label for time for station with a government agent talking about robbing a stash house he was simply being sarcastic and that the next day when he drove a van with the other conspirators to the arranged meeting place he simply didn't know what he was doing it's difficult to see how that had any likelihood of success it's difficult to see how that would convince reasonable jury and at the same time he could ford wasn't the target government agents mayfield was so mitchell was is a case of vicarious if anything vicarious or private entrapment which  uses a real criminal to get at somebody else in your client wasn't the target here maybe helpless the target respect and they really feel turned around and recruited others respectfully or out of the government instructed me feel to turn around and recruit worth was brought in to carry out part of the part of the scheme that's precisely what happened here the government targeted mayfield and then instructed him to bring others into the scheme that's a sort of dribble of inducement where you have a situation where the government is creating  included the gang history the potential threats taking advantage of mayfield being down on his luck when his car truck broke down etc all of which basically we said took the case outside of the normal opportunity to commit a crime is there anything like that about mr ward's participation in the scheme that frankly your honor we don't have a lot of information about how some some means of association everybody was brought into to participate in spears i see that my time's expired drugs so much there are additional specific questions i will defendant's argument in this case seems to be premised on this idea that he cannot reap the benefits of this court's on bok decision in mayfield but he would not have been able to do so even if his attorney had raised an entrapment defense he is in a fundamentally different position than what mayfield was in so this court's on bank decision and mayfield emphasized the extraordinary inducements that were used by the confidential informant that warranted a new trial and me feel this case what is significant here is that board does not even argue must be much less support with factual allegations that he was induced in any similar way he does not allege that he knew it is inducements to be deemed the confidential informant in mayfield he does not allege that he owed a debt to any government agent that he was repeatedly pressured that a government agent whether confidential informant or undercover used friendship or camaraderie or any of these similar tools that were necessary to support an entrapment defense all that's left is a derivative entrapment defense but his derivative entrapment defense idea that simply because he was recruited by mayfield it taints everybody else in the robbery and that is exactly what hollingsworth rejected nonetheless his attorney at trial did provide him proficiency representation so he he waged a reasonable doubt defense he supported it with the testimony of mayfield at trial and this is significant because if he would have pursued an entrapment defense that attorney ward's attorney would have had to lying he did you know but he was entrapped and although it may not be legally inconsistent to make that argument it is not sound strategic strategy and it is it is clear from the transfer to a judge changed he filed a motion for discovery based on selective prosecution that motion remains pending and i believe the government's response is due in the next month thank you mr jones your time had expired but you may have a minute for about all of you have anything for there to say primarily the opportunity to make a lot hollingsworth didn't deal with camaraderie or dress or any sort of similar situations that we saw in mayfield what happened in holland for which the government basically offered bickered the opportunity to make one on this cour your client and the court and that concludes our calendar today the court will be in recess until next tuesday