My understanding is that the murder-for-hire scheme was suggested by someone acting at the direction of law enforcement at the time. Furthermore, my understand

My understanding is that the murder-for-hire scheme was suggested by someone acting at the direction of law enforcement at the time. Furthermore, my understanding is that this person repeatedly pressured Ross before Ross gave in and ordered the hit. It sounds like the classic definition of entrapment. Law enforcement shouldn't be allowed to create a would-be-murderer and then prosecute them for essentially being easily manipulated. I haven't followed the case, and I probably have some details wrong, but it sounds like the prosecution intentionally split the murder charge into a separate trial to be run later because the entrapment defense would have cast doubt on the other charges. (To be clear, my limited understanding leads me to think that Ross was probably guilty of the 4 charges under which he was convicted.) They likely probably never intended to prosecute the murder-for-trial charges except as a backup if they lost the primary trial. The entrapment defense just looks way too easy.