We are preparing to try a federal case in Orlando that involves the entrapment defense. Of course, the essence of an entrapment defense is to show government inducement and lack of predisposition of the client. In evaluating such a defense, it is important to consider the role of an expert, as expert testimony may be admissible to prove the client was unusually susceptible to inducement. This is generally proven through the testimony of a psychologist or psychiatrist who can connect the accused’s underlying mental condition to his susceptibility to the government’s inducement. Of course, such testimony must satisfy Daubert and not run afoul of the IDRA (Insanity Defense Reform Act). An interesting discussion of this can be found in U.S. v. Godwin, 399 Fed. Appx. 484 (11th Cir., 2010).