This blog …

... supports Professor William Snyder's sections of National Security Law, Counterterrorism Law, and Prosecuting Terrorists at the Syracuse University College of Law.

Newburgh Four Reassert Entrapment Defense in Appeal

Mar 26th, 2011 defenses

Lawyers for four men convicted in October of plotting to bomb a synagogue and Jewish community center in the Bronx were back in court Thursday, arguing that their clients’ convictions should be thrown out because the government’s informant entrapped the men.

According to Reuters, the defense argument suggested that the defendants were “enticed by extravagant promises from an FBI informant” and that they “were not predisposed to commit the crime.”

The New York Times reports that one prosecutor disagreed by saying the defendants were “motivated by the desire for jihad and added, ‘Money didn’t matter to these guys.’” 

The judge has delayed sentencing of the four men – alleged ringleader James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen – until after she rules on defense motions.

Notably, the Reuters article available at the end of this post, cites data from the Center on Law and Security to show that entrapment defenses in terrorism prosecutions have not been successful over the past decade. The report states that “[s]ince 2009, the FBI has arrested 41 people on terrorism charges through sting operations — where law enforcement posed as extremist militants — the Center said. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, 10 suspects in six trials have formally used entrapment as a defense and none were successful.”

For the full text of the previously mentioned articles, click below: 

Entrapment Argued in Bomb-Plot Appeal (NYT)
NY Judge Asked to Toss Temple Plot Conviction (AP via WSJ)
New York Bomb Plot Four Ask Judge to Dismiss Charges (Reuters)

Share this article:

Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.