Opinion ID: 661459
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Refusal to Instruct the Jury Regarding Entrapment.

Text: 41 After his initial June 28, 1991 statement, Johnson was interviewed on August 1 and August 20, 1991 by Secret Service agent Alan Kolwaite. Johnson argues that because of his alleged mental disorders, he was particularly susceptible to being induced to utter the threats overheard by Agent Kolwaite, and that the repeated interviews by the Secret Service constituted entrapment. 42 In our view, however, the district court correctly declined to instruct the jury on entrapment.  '[A] valid entrapment defense has two related elements: government inducement of the crime, and lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant to engage in the criminal conduct.'  United States v. Harvey, 991 F.2d 981, 992 (2d Cir.1993) (quoting Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63, 108 S.Ct. 883, 887, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988) (alteration in Harvey )). Even if a defendant makes a showing of inducement, a district court need not submit the matter of entrapment to the jury [i]f the government's evidence of propensity [to commit the crime] stands uncontradicted. United States v. Mayo, 705 F.2d 62, 68 (2d Cir.1983), overruled on another ground, Mathews, 485 U.S. at 59 n. 1, 62, 108 S.Ct. at 884 n. 1, 886. 43 Johnson's unsolicited June 28th statement to a therapist clearly demonstrates that he was disposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by Government agents, Jacobson v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 1535, 1540, 118 L.Ed.2d 174 (1992), and thus establishes predisposition. Johnson has cited nothing in the record to the contrary. Accordingly, the district judge properly declined to instruct the jury on entrapment. 44