Whether a district court errs when it permits the government to introduce highly inflammatory, and otherwise inadmissible, evidence to preemptively rebut an entrapment defense that does not materialize during trial?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The Second, Seventh, Eighth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits require that before the government may introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to rebut a criminal defendant’s entrapment defense, the defendant must raise entrapment during trial by introducing supporting evidence in the government’s case-in-chief or the defense case. The Ninth Circuit stands alone in allowing introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence to preemptively “rebut” an anticipated entrapment defense. The question presented is whether a district court errs when it permits the government to introduce highly inflammatory, and otherwise inadmissible, evidence to preemptively rebut an entrapment defense that does not materialize during trial? i