Entrapment under California law is a legal defense that applies when law enforcement officers, or their agents, pressure, persuade, or induce someone to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed.
California Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) No. 3408 explains that police may use decoys and undercover operations, but they cannot engage in conduct likely to cause a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.
Entrapment cases often arise in undercover sting operations involving narcotics, prostitution, internet crimes, bribery, theft, and white-collar investigations.
If you've been arrested for a crime, you're not alone, and there's help available. Connecting with an experienced California criminal defense attorney at Eisner Gorin LLP can give you the best chance for a positive outcome.
Feel free to reach out and schedule a free consultation by calling us at (818) 781-1570 or contacting us here. We're here to support you every step of the way.
What is Entrapment Under California Law?
California follows an “objective test” for entrapment. That distinction matters. Instead of focusing entirely on the defendant's mindset, courts examine whether police conduct would likely pressure an ordinary law-abiding person into committing the offense.
What is CALCRIM No. 3408?
CALCRIM No. 3408 is the standard California jury instruction used when a defendant raises an entrapment defense at trial.
The instruction explains the legal framework jurors must apply when deciding whether law enforcement improperly induced criminal conduct. Jurors are instructed that entrapment occurs if:
- A law enforcement officer or agent engaged in conduct that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime, and
- The defendant committed the offense because of that conduct.
California courts recognize that undercover operations are lawful investigative tools, but there are constitutional and procedural limits on how far officers may go.
The instruction states that police conduct may constitute entrapment if officers:
- Repeatedly pressured or harassed the defendant
- Used fraud or flattery to overcome resistance
- Made appeals to friendship, sympathy, or desperation
- Promised unusually large financial rewards
- Engaged in conduct likely to induce a normally law-abiding citizen to commit the crime
At the same time, CALCRIM No. 3408 also makes clear that certain conduct is permitted. Officers may:
- Pretend to participate in criminal activity
- Use decoys
- Conceal their identity
- Provide an opportunity to commit a crime
That distinction becomes the center of many criminal trials. Simply providing an opportunity is not entrapment. Creating the crime through pressure or manipulation may be.
How Do California Courts Analyze Entrapment Claims?
California courts examine the totality of the circumstances when evaluating entrapment claims. The defense often relies on details from police reports, recorded communications, undercover recordings, text messages, and informant conduct.
Several factors frequently become important:
The Nature of Police Pressure
Persistent requests can become improper inducements when officers refuse to accept repeated refusals or exploit vulnerabilities. For example, courts may scrutinize situations where an undercover officer:
- Repeatedly contacts a target after refusals
- Exploits addiction or financial hardship
- Uses intimidation or threats
- Appeals to personal loyalty or emotional distress
Whether Officers Manufactured the Crime
Entrapment issues frequently arise when investigators create elaborate scenarios designed to lure individuals into criminal activity. Examples include:
- Fake stash house robbery operations
- Undercover internet stings
- Reverse drug stings
- Financial fraud schemes orchestrated by informants
The Defendant's Initial Reluctance
Evidence that a defendant initially resisted or declined participation may support an entrapment defense. Prosecutors often attempt to counter this argument by presenting evidence of prior conduct, statements, or predisposition toward similar crimes.
California's objective test still focuses heavily on police conduct rather than simply labeling someone as predisposed.
What Crimes Commonly Involve Entrapment Defenses?
Entrapment defenses appear most often in cases involving undercover operations or confidential informants. These types of cases can include:
- Drug sales investigations
- Online solicitation allegations
- Prostitution stings
- Theft operations
- Insurance fraud investigations
- Public corruption probes
- Bribery allegations
- Identity theft investigations
Many of these cases involve highly coordinated operations where undercover officers initiate contact and guide conversations over weeks or months. In white-collar matters, investigators sometimes rely on cooperating witnesses facing their own criminal exposure.
Those witnesses may have strong incentives to push targets into incriminating conversations or transactions.
Are Entrapment and Outrageous Government Conduct the Same?
No, they are not. Entrapment and outrageous government conduct are related defenses, but they are not the same legal argument.
A jury typically decides entrapment under CALCRIM No. 3408. The issue is whether law enforcement used pressure, fraud, harassment, or inducement that would cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.
Outrageous government conduct is different. It is a constitutional due process argument decided by a judge rather than a jury. The defense argues that law enforcement conduct became so extreme or fundamentally unfair that the prosecution itself should not proceed.
Our attorneys may raise an outrageous government conduct argument where investigators:
- Manufactured the entire criminal scheme
- Directed or controlled nearly every aspect of the offense
- Used excessive coercion or intimidation
- Exploited addiction, financial desperation, or mental vulnerability
- Pressured a reluctant person over an extended period
- Created crimes that otherwise would not have occurred
In some cases, both defenses may apply simultaneously. For example, a defendant may argue to the jury that police conduct constituted entrapment under CALCRIM No. 3408, while also asking the judge to dismiss the case entirely on grounds of unconstitutional investigative tactics.
Our criminal defense team is prepared to employ both of these defense strategies when possible.
These arguments commonly arise in undercover narcotics investigations, reverse sting operations, and large-scale federal conspiracy cases involving confidential informants or undercover agents.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is entrapment under California law?
Entrapment occurs when law enforcement officers or their agents pressure, persuade, or induce someone to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed.
What is CALCRIM No. 3408?
CALCRIM No. 3408 is the California jury instruction explaining how jurors should evaluate an entrapment defense during a criminal trial.
How does California define entrapment?
California uses an objective test that focuses primarily on police conduct and whether officers used tactics likely to cause a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.
What types of police conduct may support an entrapment defense?
Entrapment allegations may involve repeated pressure, harassment, fraud, emotional manipulation, appeals to sympathy or friendship, excessive financial inducements, or persistent undercover contact after refusals.
What police conduct is allowed during undercover investigations?
California law allows officers to use undercover identities, conduct sting operations, use decoys, pretend to participate in criminal activity, and provide opportunities to commit crimes. Simply providing an opportunity is not, in itself, entrapment.
What crimes commonly involve entrapment defenses?
Entrapment defenses often arise in drug sales cases, prostitution stings, online solicitation investigations, fraud operations, theft investigations, bribery allegations, and white collar crime cases.
What is the difference between entrapment and outrageous government conduct?
Entrapment is generally decided by a jury under CALCRIM 3408, while outrageous government conduct is a constitutional due process argument decided by a judge.
Can undercover officers lie during investigations?
Yes. Undercover officers may conceal their identity and participate in covert investigations, but they cannot improperly pressure someone into committing a crime.
What evidence helps support an entrapment defense?
Important evidence may include text messages, emails, recorded phone calls, undercover recordings, informant payment records, surveillance reports, and body camera footage.
What is the burden of proof in entrapment cases?
Entrapment is considered an affirmative defense. The defendant generally must prove entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence.
What Evidence Helps Support an Entrapment Defense?
Building an entrapment defense requires careful analysis of how the investigation unfolded from the beginning. Our defense attorneys often examine:
- Undercover recordings
- Text messages
- Emails
- Informant payment records
- Surveillance reports
- Body camera footage
- Search warrant affidavits
- Recorded phone calls
In many cases, the tone and persistence of undercover communications become central evidence. For example, repeated requests after clear refusals may support arguments that officers improperly pressured the defendant.
Similarly, exaggerated promises of money or emotional appeals may demonstrate inducement rather than lawful investigation.
Hypothetical Case Study: Undercover Financial Fraud Sting
A successful entertainment executive in Los Angeles is introduced to an undercover operative posing as an investor seeking help with a questionable insurance reimbursement scheme.
At first, the executive declines involvement several times. Over several months, however, the operative continues reaching out and gradually changes tactics.
The operative claims severe financial hardship, promises unusually large compensation, and repeatedly insists the transaction is “completely safe” because insiders are involved.
Eventually, after sustained pressure and dozens of communications initiated by the operative, the executive agrees to participate in a staged transaction. Prosecutors later filed felony fraud charges.
Our firm's criminal defense strategy focuses heavily on CALCRIM No. 3408.
Attorneys analyze:
- The defendant's repeated refusals
- The operative's escalating pressure
- Financial inducements
- Emotional manipulation
Our attorneys also highlight that the alleged criminal activity originated entirely with undercover agents and would not have occurred absent the operation.
Can Entrapment Lead to a Complete Acquittal?
Yes, if a jury concludes that the defendant was entrapped, the result is a not-guilty verdict.
That makes CALCRIM No. 3408 a powerful defense instruction in the right case. However, entrapment defenses can be highly fact-specific and difficult to present effectively without extensive investigation and strategic preparation.
Prosecutors frequently argue that:
- The defendant was willing to commit the crime
- Officers merely created an opportunity
- The defendant acted voluntarily
- No improper pressure occurred
This means that our team must often reconstruct the investigation chronologically and expose how law enforcement interactions evolved.
This process may involve reviewing thousands of pages of discovery, analyzing recordings, and cross-examining undercover officers or informants regarding their tactics and motivations.
Burden of Proof in Entrapment Cases
One of the most important aspects of a defense based on CALCRIM No. 3408 is understanding who bears the burden of proof at trial.
In most criminal defense scenarios, the prosecution must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. However, entrapment is considered an "affirmative defense" in California.
This creates a specific procedural framework during litigation:
- The Defendant's Burden: The defendant has the initial burden of proving entrapment by a "preponderance of the evidence." This is a lower legal standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt"—it essentially means the defendant must show it is more likely than not that the police conduct constituted entrapment.
- Jury Deliberation: If the jury finds that the defendant has met this burden, they must find the defendant not guilty of the charged crime. Unlike other defenses where the prosecution must "disprove" the defense, the focus here remains on the defense's ability to demonstrate the government's overreach.
- Strategic Significance: Because the burden rests on the defense, the quality of the evidence—such as recorded communications, witness testimony, and chronological logs of police contact—becomes the deciding factor. The defense must proactively build a narrative of government inducement rather than simply waiting for the prosecution to fail in its own burden.
Because the preponderance of the evidence standard is a "more likely than not" threshold, the defense often seeks to highlight the undercover operative's or informant's persistence and aggressiveness.
By shifting the focus to the government's tactics, a defendant can effectively shift the trial's narrative from their own conduct to the legality of the law enforcement operation itself.
If you have one phone call from jail, call us! If you are facing criminal charges,