What is the current state of the law on the entrapment defense?

Because in our circuit a defendant can argue that he was entrapped, and may be entitled to an entrapment instruction, based solely on evidence introduced by the government, we do not have a per se rule precluding the government from rebutting an anticipated entrapment defense in its case in chief, because such a rule would be unfair. Said otherwise, a blanket rule "that no evidence of a predisposition to commit the crime and no proof of prior convictions may ever be introduced by the government except in rebuttal to affirmative evidence of entrapment adduced by defendant" would "work grave prejudice to the government," because it would allow a defendant to invoke the defense without the government having had an opportunity to rebut it.^[8] United States v. Sherman, 240 F.2d 949, 952-53 (2d Cir. 1957), rev'd on other grounds, 356 U.S. at 377-78; see also United States v. Hicks, 635 F.3d 1063, 1072 (7th Cir. 2011) (indicating that the government may preemptively rebut an entrapment defense in its case in chief when the defendant "clearly communicate[s] his intention to present an entrapment defense").^[9]