United States v. Cromitie
781 F. Supp. 2d 211
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Defendants Cromitie, Williams (David and Onta), and Payen are charged in SDNY No. 09 Cr. 558 (CM).
- Defendants moved to dismiss the indictment on outrageous government misconduct grounds; motion renewed after denial prior to trial.
- Court analyzes whether government conduct was so outrageous as to violate due process and warrant dismissal.
- FBI informant Hussain engaged Cromitie for months, culminating in a staged operation with government-provided ordnance, vehicles, and funding.
- Investigators pursued Cromitie’s alleged intent to commit terrorist acts against synagogues and military targets; the plan culminated in May 2009 and mass arrest.
- Court ultimately denies the motion, concluding government sting activities did not shock the conscience as a matter of law, and that Cromitie voluntarily participated with substantial other indicia of predisposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether outrageous government misconduct warrants dismissal. | Cromitie | Cromitie | Denied: not shock-the-conscience level as a matter of law. |
| Does misconduct apply equally to Williams and Payen? | Williams/Payen | Williams/Payen | Denied: conduct toward Cromitie alone tainting others not shown. |
| Did government manufacture federal jurisdiction or the crime? | Cromitie | Cromitie | Denied: sting lawful; jurisdiction and targets articulated. |
| Was Cromitie psychologically coerced or coerced by the CI? | Cromitie | Cromitie | Denied: no coercion meeting due-process threshold. |
| Should precedent like Twigg control? | Cromitie | Cromitie | Denied: Twigg not controlling; no due-process violation here. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chin, 934 F.2d 393 (2d Cir.1991) (outrageous government conduct standing alone must shock conscience)
- United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.1999) (conduct must shock the conscience, regardless of inducement)
- United States v. Cuervelo, 949 F.2d 559 (2d Cir.1991) (governmental deception allowed within limits of due process)
- United States v. Lakhani, 480 F.3d 171 (3d Cir.2007) (sting operation not per se due process violation)
- United States v. Twigg, 588 F.2d 373 (3d Cir.1978) (extreme government involvement not routinely required to abort prosecution)
- United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) (due process concerns; government conduct must be sufficiently outrageous)
- United States v. Archer, 486 F.2d 670 (2d Cir.1973) (manufacturing federal jurisdiction concerns; not controlling for due process)