United States v. Cromitie (Williams)
727 F.3d 194
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Four defendants convicted of domestic terrorism plots involving Stewart Airport missiles and synagogue bombings; FBI sting using undercover informant Hussain; Cromitie recruited others; multiple counts including WMD conspiracy and murder of US personnel; District Court denied post-trial motions; jury convicted Cromitie and Williams and Payen on most counts; 25-year mandatory minimum sentences imposed; appeal challenges entrapment, outrageous government conduct, and perjured testimony.
- Informant Hussain coerced, urged, and funded the operation; surveillance and weapon mockups provided by FBI; targets included two Bronx synagogues and Stewart Airport; defendants recruited as lookouts; code words used; evidence largely from recorded conversations.
- Cromitie’s pre-inducement statements showed ominous intent but disputed whether there was an already formed design; post-inducement statements were heavily relied upon to prove predisposition under a broader design standard.
- Court rejected entrapment as a matter of law for Cromitie and upheld others’ convictions; found no outrageous government conduct; held no reversible perjury by the prosecution; affirmed verdicts and sentences.
- Jury heard extensive post-inducement admissions as evidence of predisposition; the majority declined to adopt a narrow “positional” entrapment test; dissent argues Cromitie was entrapped as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entrapment as a matter of law | Cromitie had no preexisting design; government inducement created the crime | Cromitie lacked predisposition; inducement tainted | Entrapment not established as a matter of law for Cromitie |
| Outrageous government conduct | Government conduct not outrageous despite inducement; not coercive | Conduct overly coercive, exploiting religion and love | No due process violation; outrageous conduct claim rejected |
| Knowing use of perjured testimony | Hussain lied about $250,000; government knew or should have known | Lies material but not proven to affect jury; code-word claim dubious | No reversal; no due process violation established |
| Admission of post-inducement evidence | Post-inducement conduct admissible to show predisposition if independent | Risk of misusing post-inducement conduct to prove predisposition | Admission not reversible error; predisposition shown independently |
| Sentencing entrapment/manipulation | No manipulation; missiles part of plot | Possible sentencing manipulation due to sting | No sentencing entrapment or manipulation; 25-year minimum upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (U.S. 1932) (inducement vs predisposition framework for entrapment)
- Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1992) (predisposition shown before first government contact; post-contact conduct limited)
- Becker, 62 F.2d 1007 (2d Cir. 1933) (origin of ‘design’ concept in predisposition)
- Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (U.S. 1958) (three ways to prove predisposition; readiness despite inducement)
- Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008) (modern entrapment standards; predisposition and inducement)
- United States v. Bala, 236 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2000) (three tests for predisposition; ready response to inducement)
- Hollingsworth, 27 F.3d 1196 (7th Cir. 1994) (positional approach to predisposition (in banc))