Shamansky plans to appeal the verdict on the grounds that the jury wasn't instructed on the definition of entrapment.
I agree that the man was entrapped in this sting operation.
But what is wrong with this lawyer? If he was using an entrapment defense why didn’t he explain entrapment to the jury?
This lawyer must be trying to milk this case for billable hours.
It was not the lawyers fault in this regard, unless he failed to ask for an entrapment instruction. It is the Judge who issues the instructions to the jury before deliberation. The Judge's instruction would be something to the effect of
"The Court instructs the jury that where a person has no previous intent or purpose to violate the law, but is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime, he is a victim of entrapment and the law as a matter of policy forbids his conviction in such a case.
The judge apparently refused to instruct the injury on this matter and they convicted him..so it should be an interesting appeal.