United States v. Cromitie
| Decision Date | 22 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 11–2763(L), 11–2884(con), 11–2900(con), 11–3785(con). |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James CROMITIE, aka Abdul Rehman, aka Abdul Rahman, David Williams, aka Daoud, aka DL, Onta Williams, aka Hamza, Laguerre Payen, aka Amin, aka Almondo, Defendants–Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Adam S. Hickey, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York, N.Y. (Preet Bharara, U.S. Atty., Patrick Ian McGinley, Jason P.W. Halperin, Iris Lan, Asst. U.S. Attys., New York, NY, on the brief), for Appellee.
Clinton W. Calhoun, III, White Plains, N.Y. (Calhoun & Lawrence, LLP, White Plains, NY, on the brief), for Appellant James Cromitie.
Theodore S. Green, White Plains, N.Y. (Green & Willstatter, White Plains, NY, on the brief), for Appellant David Williams.
David A. Lewis, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc. Appeals Bureau, New York, N.Y. (Mark B. Gombiner, New York, NY, on the brief), for Appellant Onta Williams.
Sam Braverman, Bronx, N.Y. (Jennifer B. Arlin, Bronx, NY, on the brief), for Appellant Laguerre Payen.
Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge, and NEWMAN and RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by four defendants convicted of planning and attempting to carry out domestic terrorism offenses involving a plot to launch missiles at an Air National Guard base at Stewart Airport in Newburgh, NY, and bomb two synagogues in the Bronx. The appeal primarily presents issues concerning the extent to which a government informant may lawfully urge the commission of crimes, issues framed as claims of entrapment as a matter of law and outrageous government conduct in violation of the Due Process Clause. The appeal also presents an issue concerning the falsity of portions of the informant's trial testimony. These issues arise on an appeal by defendants-appellants James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams, and Laguerre Payen from the July 8, 2011, judgments of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, District Judge). We reject the defendants' claims of entrapment as a matter of law, outrageous government conduct in the instigation of the offenses, and knowing use of perjured testimony, as well as all other claims raised on appeal. We therefore affirm.
The charged offenses. All the charged offenses resulted from an elaborate sting operation conducted by the FBI using an undercover informant. An indictment filed in June 2009, charged the four defendants with eight offenses: Count One—conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction within the United States (18 U.S.C. § 2332a); Counts Two, Three, and Four—attempt to use weapons of mass destruction near or at the Riverdale Temple, in the Bronx, the Riverdale Jewish Center (a synagogue) in the Bronx, and the New York Air National Guard Base at Newburgh, respectively (18 U.S.C. § 2332a); Count Five—conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles (18 U.S.C. § 2332(g)); Count Six—attempt to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles (18 U.S.C. § 2332(g)); Count Seven—conspiracy to kill officers and employees of the United States (18 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1117); Count Eight—attempt to kill officers and employees of the United States (18 U.S.C. §§...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halloran v. United States
... ... United States , 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988) (citations omitted). The defendant bears "the burden of showing inducement" and, "if inducement is shown, the prosecution has the burden of proving predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v ... Cromitie , 727 F.3d 194, 204 (2d Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). At trial, the jury was instructed on the law of entrapment and the issue was argued by both sides during their summations. (Tr. 3952-56, 4001-03 , 4097-99.) The Government presented compelling evidence that Petitioner himself took the ... ...
-
United States v. Parker
... ... denied, U.S. , 132 S.Ct. 2374, 182 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2012). The inquiry should "turn on whether the governmental conduct, standing alone, is so offensive that it shocks the conscience regardless of the extent to which it led the defendant to commit his crime.' " United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194, 21819 (2d Cir.2013) (quoting United States v. Chin, 934 F.2d 393, 398 (2d Cir.1991) ), cert. denied, U.S. , 135 S.Ct. 53, 190 L.Ed.2d 55 (2014) ; see also United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 836 (2d Cir.1982) ("due process claim focuses on the conduct of the government ... ...
-
United States v. Flores, Docket Nos. 17-4039(L)
... ... Cromitie , 727 F.3d 194, 216 (2d Cir. 2013) (predisposition shown by "willing[ness] to join in a terrorism plot without any hesitation or reservation" (internal quotation marks omitted)). "The question of entrapment is generally one for the jury, rather than for the court." Mathews , 485 U.S. at 63, 108 ... ...
-
United States v. Aquart
... ... If the prosecution knew, or should have known, of the false testimony prior to the conclusion of trial, the conviction must be set aside if there is "any reasonable likelihood" that the testimony could have affected the jurys judgment. United States v. Cromitie , 727 F.3d 194, 22122 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases). If the government was unaware of the falsity at the time of trial, a new trial is warranted if the court is left with the "firm belief that but for the perjured testimony, the defendant would most likely ... ...
-
Race, Entrapment, and Manufacturing 'Homegrown Terrorism
...than a decade—that is, not until an insurgency on January 6, 2021. 15 known as the “Fort Dix 5”; conviction); United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194, 199 (2d Cir. 2013) (including co-defendants Payen, David Williams, and Onta Williams; conviction); United States v. Mohamud, 843 F.3d 420, 4......