Entrapment Defense Trial: Louisiana Lawyer Wins Not-Guilty Online Solicitation Case
What does an entrapment defense actually look like when it is presented to a jury?
In this episode of Andrew & Andrew on Texas Criminal Defense, Andrew Herreth and Andrew Decker are joined by Louisiana criminal defense attorney Patricio Ramos, who recently obtained a not-guilty verdict in an online solicitation case after presenting an entrapment defense.
The case did not look promising on paper.
Ramos's client had continued communicating with an undercover officer after being told the purported girl was 15 years old. Police found condoms when they arrested him. Even worse for the defense, Ramos said his client gave investigators a recorded statement admitting he knew the purported girl's age and explaining that he had brought condoms for their protection.
Nevertheless, Ramos and his co-counsel took the case to trial.
What changed the case was a careful examination of the undercover investigation itself.
The client initially encountered the undercover persona on an adult-oriented website whose terms required users to be 18. The undercover profile initially represented its user as an adult. Investigators found no prior material on the client's phone suggesting a sexual interest in minors.
Then there were the government's own messages.
According to Ramos, the undercover officer used sexually suggestive language, continued pressing the defendant when he appeared reluctant to meet, created urgency when he suggested waiting until another day, and even changed the proposed meetup location when the original location was inconvenient.
Eventually, the defendant started toward the meeting location—but turned around and began walking home before police arrested him.
Ramos turned those facts into an entrapment defense.
The episode explores how he developed that defense, how he used the government's own investigative policies during cross-examination, and why jury selection may have been as important as anything that happened during the evidentiary portion of the trial.
In This Episode
Andrew, Andrew, and Patricio discuss:
How Patricio went from dropping out of high school to serving eight years in the Navy, attending UCLA, graduating from law school, and becoming a criminal defense lawyer.
Why working as a prosecutor convinced him that criminal defense was where he wanted to practice.
The facts behind the online solicitation sting that led to his client's arrest.
Why an apparently devastating confession did not end the defense investigation.
The difference between providing an opportunity to commit a crime and inducing criminal conduct.
How the defense attacked the prosecution's theory of predisposition.
Why the absence of similar material on the client's extracted phone became important.
How the adult-only terms of the website supported the defense theory.
Why defense attorneys should scrutinize every message sent by undercover investigators.
How statements such as “I'm looking to have some fun” and references to cleaning off a bed became important cross-examination material.
How law enforcement allegedly continued pushing the encounter when the defendant tried to delay or disengage.
Why changing the meetup location became relevant to the entrapment argument.
The significance of the defendant turning around and beginning to walk home before his arrest.
How Ramos used jury selection to identify prospective jurors who could not fairly consider an entrapment defense.
Why challenges for cause allowed the defense to preserve valuable peremptory strikes.
The bar-and-red-wristband analogy Ramos used to explain entrapment to prospective jurors.
How an undercover officer's explanation of investigative policy can become a roadmap for cross-examination.
The Confrontation Clause dispute created when the FBI agent responsible for the communications did not testify at trial.
Why Ramos invoked Crawford v. Washington and attempted to preserve the issue for appeal.
The importance of continuing to preserve appellate issues even when the defense believes it has a chance of winning the trial.
The emotional moment when the jury returned a not-guilty verdict.
What Ramos later learned about why the jurors rejected the prosecution's case.
Why preparation—not a magic trick—was ultimately the foundation of the defense.
Ramos's advice that criminal defense attorneys need to be among the most prepared people in the courtroom.
Why trial lawyers should never assume that terrible facts automatically make a case unwinnable.
