United States v. Georgescu, 699 F. App'x 73

Georgescu was convicted in S.D.N.Y. for conspiracy to kill U.S. officers and for providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization.
He appealed, challenging two jury-instruction matters: (1) the district court’s entrapment-by-estoppel instruction and (2) the absence of a separate instruction on negation of intent.
Entrapment by estoppel permits a defendant to avoid liability if he reasonably relied on a government agent’s words or conduct that led him to believe his conduct was authorized.
Georgescu argued the jury instruction improperly required evidence of an "affirmative" statement or conduct by a government agent and that he was entitled to a separate negation-of-intent instruction.
The Second Circuit reviewed the instructions de novo and required a showing of error plus prejudice to reverse.
The court rejected Georgescu’s claims and affirmed the district court, holding the instructions properly focused on the defendant’s reasonable interpretation of government action and that negation of intent was inapplicable to the offenses here.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entrapment by estoppel instruction	Instruction was proper; government must have proven no reasonable reliance	Georgescu: instruction improperly required an "affirmative" government statement or conduct	Affirmed — entrapment-by-estoppel requires reliance on words or conduct by a government agent; instruction read as a whole was correct
Requirement of "affirmative" government action	Government/precedent: defense requires showing government words/deeds inducing reliance	Georgescu: prior cases do not mandate proof of affirmative statements or conduct	Affirmed — circuit precedent consistently requires reliance rooted in actual government words or deeds
Separate negation-of-intent instruction	N/A (prosecution opposed)	Georgescu: entitled to a distinct negation-of-intent charge to rebut mens rea	Rejected — the crimes required intent to pursue conspiracy goals, not intent to disobey law; belief in authorization is a defense, not mens rea negation here
Prejudice from any instructional error	Government: no error or no prejudice	Georgescu: any error misled jury and warrants reversal	Affirmed — no prejudicial error; defendant had opportunity to present entrapment-by-estoppel defense

United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2007) (standard for reversal based on flawed jury instructions)
United States v. Coppola, 671 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2012) (review standard for jury instructions)
Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552 (2d Cir. 1994) (prejudice inquiry for erroneous jury charge)
United States v. Giffen, 473 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2006) (defines entrapment by estoppel requiring government-induced reliance)
United States v. Abcasis, 45 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 1995) (discusses government agent solicitation/assurances)
United States v. Gil, 297 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2002) (entrapment-by-estoppel arises where a government agent authorizes conduct)
United States v. Miles, 748 F.3d 485 (2d Cir. 2014) (describes need for an affirmative assurance from government)
United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001) (jury instructions must be considered as a whole)
Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) (jury-charge review principle)
Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (1985) (mens rea requirement for technical regulatory offenses)
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (willfulness requires proof of intent regarding tax law violations)
Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) (willfulness in complex bank regulation prosecutions)
Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) (willfulness in federal firearms seller licensing)
Aparicio v. Artuz, 269 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2001) (affirmative defenses can negate criminal liability despite proof of offense elements)