¶1Michael D. Nasatir (argued), of Nasatir, Sherman & Hirsch, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant.
¶2Darrell MacIntyre (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
¶3Before ELY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and PECKHAM, * District Judge.
¶6Stagg’s six-count conviction for conspiracy and for possessing and distributing co*1011caine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting), is remanded for a new trial. United States v. Demma, 523 F.2d 981 (9th Cir. 1975) (en banc).
¶7The district court, believing at the time of trial that it was bound by Eastman v. United States, 212 F.2d 320 (9th Cir. 1954), did not permit Stagg to present his tendered entrapment defense until after he took the stand and admitted the conduct described by the government’s witnesses.
¶8In United States v. Demma, supra,decided after this case was tried, we held that the Eastman rule was inconsistent with Supreme Court decisions on entrapment. We overruled Eastman without indicating whether Demma should apply to pending cases. We did point out, however, that the rule in Demma was not a declaration of a new rule of law, but merely a correction of an aberration which began with Eastman. Accordingly, there is no reason for refusing to apply Demma to cases pending on appeal at the time Demma was decided. United States v. Hart (9th Cir. 1976) (en banc).
¶9Vacated and remanded.