United States v. Cromitie
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
727 F.3d 194 (2013)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
In 2008 and 2009, Shahed Hussain worked as a paid informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for the purpose of locating Muslims who might be inclined to carry out domestic-terrorism offenses. On June 13, 2008, Hussain was approached by James Cromitie (defendant) at a mosque in Newburgh, New York. During their initial conversation, Cromitie said that he wanted to die like a martyr and “do something to America.” Cromitie later indicated that he hated Jews and Americans and that he wanted to kill the president. Hussain, posing as a representative of a terrorist group, advised Cromitie that he could procure guns and missiles for Cromitie and that he had an opportunity for Cromitie to earn $250,000. On April 5, 2009, Cromitie contacted Hussain and expressed interest in earning money with Hussain. Cromitie subsequently recruited David Williams, Onta Williams, and Laguerre Payen (defendants). Cromitie and his recruits planned to bomb two synagogues and also to launch missiles at Stewart Airport in Newburgh. Hussain instructed Cromitie and his recruits on how to carry out the attacks, procured fake bombs and missiles, and rented storage lockers to store the weapons. On May 20, 2009, Cromitie and his recruits attempted to carry out the bombings at the synagogues, where FBI agents arrested them. Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams, and Payen were charged with and convicted of planning and attempting domestic-terrorism offenses and subsequently appealed, arguing the defenses of entrapment and outrageous government conduct.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Newman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.