Sylvan

I don't think there is any question whether or not there is a "case" for entrapment. Just the fact that the warden had prior knowledge of the crime about to be committed and was present when it was committed is enough for a "case" for entrapment or in other words an "entrapment defense". The only hurdle for the accused is to convince a judge that it is "reasonable" to believe that entrapment "could have" taken place. They don't have to prove it did. If the judge thinks its reasonable to believe that it "cold have" taken place then its the responsibility of the government to prove that it didn't in court. Once you get to that point the question becomes, is the warden"guilty" of entrapment and in that I agree with you that it can't be decided here but must be decided in court where all the facts can be brought out. Of course if the court decides the warden is guilty then all the charges that resulted from the entrapment get dropped. That's just how it works!

Remember too, if there is reasonable doubt in the jury as to whether or not the warden made the arrest "entrapment free" if you will, then the accused go free. It's a subtle but important reverse of the way we normally think about court cases. In a manner of speaking, if the judge decides there is a case for entrapment then the warden is for all intent and purpose considered guilty unless it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did everything right in making the arrest.