United States v. Siraj
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
468 F. Supp. 2d 408 (2007)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Shahawar Siraj (defendant) and James Elshafay discussed their shared desire to perpetrate bombings in New York City as revenge for perceived mistreatment of Muslims by the United States. A plan by Elshafay to blow up bridges was discussed but abandoned. Siraj then detailed his own plan to blow up a subway station. Later, Siraj spoke repeatedly with Osama Eldawoody, who appeared to be very concerned about the invasion of Iraq and the treatment of Muslim prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Siraj was arrested in connection with the subway-bombing plot. The United States (plaintiff) relied on testimony by Elshafay as a cooperating witness; Eldawoody, who turned out to be a government informant; and Kamil Pasha, an undercover police officer who had spoken with Siraj prior to Siraj’s meeting with Eldawoody. Siraj was convicted of four counts of conspiracy in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Siraj moved for a judgment of acquittal by reason of entrapment, arguing he had never discussed terrorism-related subjects until induced by Eldawoody’s comments. As part of the government’s rebuttal, Pasha testified that Siraj discussed his desire to see more terrorist bombings in the United States before he met Eldawoody.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gershon, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
