United States v. Cromitie (Williams)
727 F.3d 194 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To defeat an entrapment defense in a terrorism case, the government can prove predisposition by showing the defendant had a pre-existing, generalized design to inflict harm on U.S. interests, even if the government provides the specific plan, essential materials, and significant financial inducement.
Facts:
- In June 2008, James Cromitie approached government informant Shahed Hussain at a mosque, stating he wanted to 'do something to America' and 'die like a shahid, a martyr.'
- Over the next several months, Hussain cultivated a relationship with Cromitie, who expressed hatred for Jewish people and Americans and volunteered that he wanted to join the terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammed.
- In November 2008, while watching news of a terrorist attack, Cromitie told Hussain, 'I’d like to get a synagogue. Me. Yeah, personally.' Cromitie also independently suggested Stewart Airport as a potential target.
- After a six-week lapse in contact, Cromitie called Hussain on April 5, 2009, to complain about his financial problems.
- Hussain responded to Cromitie's money problems by stating, 'I told you, I can make you 250,000 dollars, but you don’t want it brother,' which prompted Cromitie to re-engage with the plot.
- In April 2009, Cromitie recruited David Williams, and together they conducted surveillance of synagogues and Stewart Airport. They subsequently recruited Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen to act as lookouts.
- On May 6, 2009, Hussain showed Cromitie, David Williams, and Payen inert bombs and missiles supplied by the FBI and instructed them on their use.
- On May 20, 2009, the four defendants drove with Hussain to the Bronx, where Cromitie planted the fake explosive devices in cars parked near two synagogues.
Procedural Posture:
- The four defendants were charged in a federal indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York with eight terrorism-related offenses.
- After an eight-day deliberation, a jury convicted Cromitie and David Williams on all counts, and Onta Williams and Payen on all counts except one.
- The defendants filed post-trial motions arguing entrapment as a matter of law and outrageous government conduct, which the District Court denied in comprehensive written opinions.
- The District Court sentenced each defendant to the 25-year mandatory minimum sentence.
- The four defendants appealed their convictions and sentences to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the government's sting operation that provided the specific plan, means, and significant financial inducement for a terrorist plot constitute entrapment as a matter of law when the primary defendant had previously expressed a generalized desire to commit violence against the United States?
Opinions:
Majority - Jon O. Newman
The government's actions did not constitute entrapment as a matter of law because the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were predisposed to commit the crimes. Although the government provided significant inducement, including a $250,000 offer, Cromitie's predisposition was established by his 'already formed design' to commit terrorist acts. The court held that in the context of terrorism, such a 'design' need only be a generalized idea or intent to inflict harm, not a specific, detailed plan. Cromitie's initial statements about wanting to 'do something to America,' die as a martyr, join a terrorist group, and his volunteering of targets like synagogues and an airport all demonstrated this pre-existing design. The other three defendants demonstrated predisposition through their 'ready response' and enthusiastic participation upon being recruited. The court also rejected the outrageous government conduct claim, ruling that feigned friendship, cash inducements, and coaching do not 'shock the conscience' and violate due process.
Dissenting - Dennis Jacobs
The government entrapped Cromitie as a matter of law because there was no evidence of an 'already formed design.' The majority's definition of 'design' as a 'rather generalized idea' is too broad and effectively eliminates the entrapment defense. Cromitie's statements were merely 'big talk,' 'wishes,' and 'boastful piety,' not a formed plan or preparation to commit a crime. The entire criminal design was conceived, planned, financed, and pushed upon the impoverished and incompetent Cromitie by the government informant over a year-long campaign of 'nagging, pursuit, and temptation.' Cromitie's post-inducement actions were evidence of the successful inducement, not of a pre-existing disposition. However, the convictions of the other three defendants should be affirmed, as they demonstrated a 'ready response' to the inducement.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'already formed design' prong of the entrapment defense, particularly within the context of terrorism sting operations. By defining 'design' as a generalized intent rather than a specific, concrete plan, the court lowers the bar for the government to prove predisposition. This ruling strengthens the legal foundation for the FBI's use of elaborate sting operations to prosecute individuals who express violent, anti-American sentiments but may lack the independent means or specific plans to act. The court's explicit rejection of the Seventh Circuit's 'positional' predisposition test further solidifies the Second Circuit's focus on the defendant's subjective mental state over their actual capability to commit the crime.
