United States v. Isnadin, No. 12-13474 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendants appealed their convictions for drug and possession charges after they tried to rob a stash house based on information given to them from an undercover agent. The court concluded that the district court's supplemental jury instruction was a correct statement of the law regarding entrapment; the trial court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury to consider entrapment separately as to each count; the district court did not err in failing to grant Defendant Gustama's motion for judgment of acquittal as sufficient evidence supporting his convictions and neither he nor his co-defendants were entrapped as a matter of law; and Defendant Isnadin was not entitled to relief as this Circuit did not recognize derivative entrapment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.