Tagged: FBI Agents

The Newburg Sting: HBO Documentary Screening and Panel Discussion: Views from a Law Student

POST WRITTEN BY: Maureen F. Schnepf (’17), Pace Law School

On Tuesday February 3, 2015, some of my classmates and I attended The Newburgh Sting event – an event our professors had encouraged us to attend,  assuring us it would be a great time. I had never heard of this case prior to the event and was interested in finding out whether  this was “a classic case of entrapment.” As an American, I have always had faith in our criminal justice system. However, on Tuesday, that faith was somewhat shaken. Fortunately, there were many other valuable takeaways making up for it.

The film portrays the story of four poor black men, James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payan, who, as the movie portrays it, were all entrapped by an FBI undercover informant, Shahed Hussein. The FBI agency is tasked with the responsibility to combat terrorism, especially in the post 9/11 world. But at what cost do we as Americans support this goal? In order to turn these men into terrorists, Shahed Hussein approached James Cromitie, a low level marijuana dealer who worked at Walmart, to recruit him to bomb synagogues in Riverdale, NY and a military base near Newburgh, NY. Hussein kept pushing  Cromitie to find more “brothers” to come along. Hussein needed involvement of more than one person for a conspiracy charge to stand since Hussein was a government agent. Even after Mr. Cromitie temporarily disappeared, he was nevertheless pulled back in by the false sense of security that Hussein promised. Mr. Cromitie convinced three other men to help: one needed money to pay for his brother’s medical bills that had resulted from a surgery removing a tumor; another one was enticed by the promise of sustenance and financial stability which he so needed for his family; and the last one hoped this to be his ticket out of poverty-stricken Newburgh. All four men had exactly one thing in common – they all needed money. Hussein skillfully lured all four men, taking advantage of their low intelligence while promising financial security.

When the plot was being formulated (in Hussein’s living room with hidden cameras), Hussein was the one giving instructions.  It was Hussein who suggested using two bombs in a backpack and a stinger missile. Coincidentally, the use of a stinger missile triggers a mandatory 25 year sentence in prison. It was Hussein who continuously reminded the men that this was a jihad – a holy war for Allah. Mr. Cromitie and David Williams demanded reassurance from Hussein that they were only targeting property and that no one would get hurt. Hussein kept inciting the men to believe that this mission was for Allah; however, Mr. Cromitie always responded that “[t]hey can use the money.”

On the night of the attack, the whole group drove to Connecticut to pick up the – unbeknownst to the participants – fake bombs and the stinger missile. Interestingly enough, crossing state lines triggered federal jurisdiction. When the men returned to New York to switch the cars, they were apprehended by the police and FBI agents. The scene was flooded with an excessive number of police officers who claimed to be thwarting four “terrorists” – who they knew had two fake bombs that would never detonate. To top it all off, the FBI made public statements about this thwarted attack, stating that the FBI had been watching these four Muslim men who had allegedly met in prison for over a year. However, the men did not meet in prison; nor did I get the feeling from the video that they were devout Muslims because only one Quran was discovered when their homes were searched. The FBI put on a great show for the public. The four men pleaded  not guilty but were convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison.  They lost their appeal, and their last resort, the U.S. Supreme Court, denied their writ of certiorari.

On one hand I can see how they were convicted since they followed through on the plan of committing a terrorist attack on innocent people. However, can we call this “justice”? The defendants were convicted for a crime they would have never had the ability to pull off had it not been for the government planting this idea in their minds. The defense attorneys who spoke at Pace on Tuesday shared that the trial judge, Judge McMahon, in her opinion, appeared to be setting these four men up for a successful appeal, even after the jury found the entrapment defense baseless and convicted them. That boggled my mind. In her 54 page opinion, the judge opines as if she is to find the defendants not guilty but in the last two pages she found the four defendants guilty, even Payan who clearly exhibited diminished mental capacity.

This entire situation was very sad to learn about. The families of these men who will forever be labeled as terrorists will not see them for 25 years. I can’t help but ask: would they have ever done this without the FBI? I don’t think so.

And so, what’s the lesson? Ms. Susanne Brody, Onta Williams’ defense attorney, shared that integrity is key – one must remain grounded in what is right and what is wrong – that is the key to being an attorney. Don’t just blindly follow, and stand up for what you believe is right. Another valuable lesson was to learn about the amount of time and effort invested into this case. Sam Bravermen, defense counsel for Mr. Payan, shared that his team spent close to 10,000 hours working on this case in just a few months, demonstrating the diligence, commitment, hard work, and team cooperation needed to take on a case such was this.

If there was one truth throughout the film that stuck with me the most, it was that fear is among the most potent motivators. It motivated a jury to convict these men. It motivated the FBI to plan and incite this entire “attack” in the name of security, and it appears to motivate all of us today. But perhaps we should be more fearful about the fact that our system isn’t always working as intended.  Having integrity and thus ensuring the integrity of the system we are all going to very soon be a part of, perhaps, should be our focus. Whether working as a defense attorney, a prosecutor, or for the FBI, we all should try our best to act with candor, do the right thing, and remember why we came to law school in the first place.

I urge all of you to watch this film. It speaks for itself. You may be surprised at how you feel once the credits begin to roll.

The Newburgh Sting Event Wrap-Up

On behalf of Prof. Lissa Griffin who was instrumental in making this event a reality.

What could be better than a terrific film documentary about a sensational criminal case and a panel discussion with the director and the lawyers who defended the four defendants, several of whom were Pace Law grads. That was Tuesday evening in the Moot Court Room. Many thanks to Prof. Lou Fasulo, Prof. Lucie Olejnikova, Iris Mercado, Jessica Dubuss, Joan Gaylord, Judy Jaeger, Janice Dean, Kay Longworth, Tony Soares, Glen Quillen, Ann Marie Stepancic, and of course the Criminal Justice Society and its president, Erica Danielson,  for their help in making this such a successful event. We had approximately 130 people – an interesting mix of students, CLE participants, alums, and the public – attend the screening of The Newburgh Sting HBO documentary, an almost unbelievable critique of one investigation and prosecution in the government’s “War on Terrorism.”

The government certainly has a legitimate interest in uncovering people in the United States who are intent on joining a terrorist plot against the Country.  In this case, that is what it apparently set out to do.  But here, four poor African American men from Newburgh, NY, previously unknown to the government, were induced by an FBI informant – with the most lavish kinds of benefits – to attempt to bomb synagogues in Riverdale, NY and military transports on Stewart Air Force Base. They never saw a Stinger missile in their lives – indeed, they were unemployed and owned no cars or even bicycles – until such a weapon along with non-functioning bombs were produced by  the undercover agent. As the trial judge stated, they would have done nothing unlawful or remotely terrorist-related if the government  had left them alone. Still, they were convicted as willing joiners in this plot.   The jury took eight days to convict, and the Second Circuit upheld the convictions, with a dissenting judge holding the defendants were entrapped as a matter of law. It’s a fascinating and provocative case.

The panel of lawyers addressed important issues about the nature of our criminal justice system, the role of defense lawyers and prosecutors, the law on entrapment, trial tactics, and the legitimate government interest in the prosecution of prospective terrorists, and the director, who was an attorney and ex-prosecutor himself, brought a unique perspective to the issues.

Thanks to all who made this possible!  Lissa

REMINDER: The Newburgh Sting – HBO Documentary Screening with Director and Attorneys

On February 3, 2015 at 6:00 pm in the Moot Court Room of the Gerber Glass building at Pace Law School, the Criminal Justice Institute and Criminal Justice Society at Pace Law School will host a screening of the HBO Movie The Newburgh Sting, with the film’s director, David Heilbroner. This film, which was shown at the 2014 Tribeca Film Festival, tells the story of United States v. Cromitie, a 2013 terrorism case that arose out of Newburgh, New York and was tried in White Plains. The defendants were young men who joined the efforts of an undercover FBI agent posing as a terrorist in his plan to bomb a synagogue in Riverdale. United States v. Cromitie, 781 F. Supp. 2d 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). It has been said to involve the most outrageous government entrapment methods of any post-9/11 terrorism case. But did it? Or was it rather a successful prosecution of young men willing to join the efforts of an apparently well-armed, well organized terrorist? The jury took eight days to render its verdict, rejecting the entrapment defense. The defendants were sentenced to twenty-five year prison sentences. The Second Circuit affirmed in a divided opinion. United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2013).

After the screening, the attorneys involved in the case will join the director for a panel discussion addressing the many provocative issues raised by the film. Among these issues are:

  • Were the defendants entrapped as a matter of law or were they properly convicted for willingly joining a terrorist plot?
  • How can the government discover and prosecute people who are not members of a known terrorist organization but who are willing to join a plot to bomb US targets?
  • What are the differences between a film director trying to show “what happened” and a lawyer trying to prove “what happened” in a courtroom?
  • What do those differences say about our criminal justice system?
  • What do these lessons mean for lawyers and law students?

Several of the attorneys taking part in the panel discussion are graduates of Pace Law School: Susanne Brody is a 1988 graduate and an attorney with Federal Defenders of New York; Heather Bird is a 2010 graduate and is an attorney in Toronto, Canada; Gonul Aksoy is a 2008 graduate and an attorney with a White Plains firm; and Giovanni Rosania is a 2006 graduate also in private practice in White Plains. The panel also includes two well respected and well known criminal defense lawyers who were defense counsel in the case: Sam Braverman of Fasulo Braverman & Di Maggio, LLP, President of the Bronx County Bar Association, and Kerry Lawrence of Calhoun & Lawrence, LLP, a former Assistant United States Attorney.

The Pace Criminal Justice Institute generates educational opportunities for Pace Law students and promotes interdisciplinary collaboration between scholars, policymakers and practitioners in and outside the Pace community. The Institute supports and encourages creative research, teaching, and discussion concerning the theory and practice of Criminal Law. The Institute created and maintains an online forum, Pace Criminal Justice Blog, fostering and encouraging the discourse of important current issues in domestic and international criminal law and procedure.

The Newburgh Sting – HBO Documentary Screening with Director and Attorneys

On February 3, 2015 at 6:00 pm in the Moot Court Room of the Gerber Glass building at Pace Law School, the Criminal Justice Institute and Criminal Justice Society at Pace Law School will host a screening of the HBO Movie The Newburgh Sting, with the film’s director, David Heilbroner. This film, which was shown at the 2014 Tribeca Film Festival, tells the story of United States v. Cromitie, a 2013 terrorism case that arose out of Newburgh, New York and was tried in White Plains. The defendants were young men who joined the efforts of an undercover FBI agent posing as a terrorist in his plan to bomb a synagogue in Riverdale. United States v. Cromitie, 781 F. Supp. 2d 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). It has been said to involve the most outrageous government entrapment methods of any post-9/11 terrorism case. But did it? Or was it rather a successful prosecution of young men willing to join the efforts of an apparently well-armed, well organized terrorist? The jury took eight days to render its verdict, rejecting the entrapment defense. The defendants were sentenced to twenty-five year prison sentences. The Second Circuit affirmed in a divided opinion. United States v. Cromitie, 727 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2013).

After the screening, the attorneys involved in the case will join the director for a panel discussion addressing the many provocative issues raised by the film. Among these issues are:

  • Were the defendants entrapped as a matter of law or were they properly convicted for willingly joining a terrorist plot?
  • How can the government discover and prosecute people who are not members of a known terrorist organization but who are willing to join a plot to bomb US targets?
  • What are the differences between a film director trying to show “what happened” and a lawyer trying to prove “what happened” in a courtroom?
  • What do those differences say about our criminal justice system?
  • What do these lessons mean for lawyers and law students?

Several of the attorneys taking part in the panel discussion are graduates of Pace Law School: Susanne Brody is a 1988 graduate and an attorney with Federal Defenders of New York; Heather Bird is a 2010 graduate and is an attorney in Toronto, Canada; Gonul Aksoy is a 2008 graduate and an attorney with a White Plains firm; and Giovanni Rosania is a 2006 graduate also in private practice in White Plains. The panel also includes two well respected and well known criminal defense lawyers who were defense counsel in the case: Sam Braverman of Fasulo Braverman & Di Maggio, LLP, President of the Bronx County Bar Association, and Kerry Lawrence of Calhoun & Lawrence, LLP, a former Assistant United States Attorney.

The Pace Criminal Justice Institute generates educational opportunities for Pace Law students and promotes interdisciplinary collaboration between scholars, policymakers and practitioners in and outside the Pace community. The Institute supports and encourages creative research, teaching, and discussion concerning the theory and practice of Criminal Law. The Institute created and maintains an online forum, Pace Criminal Justice Blog, fostering and encouraging the discourse of important current issues in domestic and international criminal law and procedure.

Undercover Practices: A Comparison

POST WRITTEN BY: Lissa Griffin, Professor at Pace Law School & Rafael Wolff, Federal Judge in Brazil and SJD candidate at Pace Law School.

A recent editorial and recent articles in The New York Times address the growing use of undercover agents and their necessarily deceptive practices. The New York Times now reports that the use of undercover operations has expanded “with officers from at least 40 agencies posing as business people, welfare recipients, political protesters and even doctors or ministers to ferret out wrongdoing….” The justification is the efficiency and cost-savings over traditional investigation through tips, legwork, interviews, search warrants, and surveillance. No probable cause or search warrant is required.

Is such widespread deception part of our culture?

Maybe it’s just one of the choices we have to make given our Constitution. Our historic fear of centralized authority and the accompanying protection of the individual against government intrusion makes some other more overt investigatory techniques unavailable to us. Thus, for example, in the United Kingdom, recent terrorist legislation improved the Government’s ability to investigate and prevent terrorism by extending the permissible periods of pre-charge detention. Imminent terrorist events may now be averted by simply breaking up the terrorism groups, and enhanced questioning can be accomplished early on. Our bill of rights would prevent that. Thus, instead of investigating overtly, we investigate by deception.

Up until now, rules and guidelines have been inadequate. Now, apparently in response to the “Fast and Furious” undercover operation that allowed guns to travel to Mexico, the Department of Justice has  issued internal guidelines designed to “tighten oversight” of undercover operations. Before prosecutors approve of using undercover investigation, they must consider “whether an operation identifies a ‘clearly’ defined objective, whether it is truly necessary, whether it targets ‘significant criminal actors or entities,’ and other factors.” This is good.

So, does Brazil tolerate as much deception as the United States?  Our conclusion remains that Brazil’s statutory limits restrict deception and protect privacy to a much greater extent than do the US due process clause or recent agency guidelines.  Considering the efficiency of undercover operations, but considering the risks to third party privacy and even to the agent’s security, maybe Brazil needs to use more, and the United States less, of this particularly interesting investigative tool.

These articles raise questions about the scope of undercover investigations and about fair investigative tactics by government agents. An instructive comparison can be made between limits on undercover activity in the United States and in another country, for example, Brazil.

In Brazil, the use of undercover agents requires a judicial warrant authorizing the infiltration of a criminal organization. This is expressly stated by Law 11.343/06 (Article 53, I) and Law 12.850/13 (Article 10). A judge may only issue such a warrant if the government establishes: 1) evidence of organized criminal activities or narcotics offenses; and 2) it is impossible to produce the evidence by another less intrusive way (Law 12.850/13, Article 10). Those are both federal laws, as just the Federal Congress can legislate about criminal procedure. Organized criminal activity occurs when there is a criminal organization of four or more individuals that functions in a structured way and with a division of tasks, even informally, to obtain direct or indirect criminal advantage. To be considered a criminal organization, the activity should be punishable by a maximum prison sentence of more than four years. Law 12.850/12 also allows the use of undercover agents and other special investigative tools in case of transnational crime which Brazil is internationally obliged to eradicate (for sure, when the crime occurs in Brazilian soil) and transnational terrorist groups recognized by international organizations in which Brazil is a member.

The use of undercover agents is also legal in the investigation of crimes created by Law 11.343/06, that is, in investigations into narcotics crimes. This category was included by the legislature because of the considerable risk of danger in the organized narcotics business.

In addition, Law 12.850/13 requires that the conduct of the undercover agent be proportional to the goal  of the operation and provides that the agent will be criminally culpable for any excess (art. 13). The same article makes clear that the agent will not be liable if it was not reasonable to act differently in the case.  The legislation is very vague, however, leaving it to the court to fix the limits in the warrant.  For example, it will be the judge who, based on the values prescribed by the Constitution and statutes, will have to decide if it is reasonable to allow an agent to send child porn pictures during an investigation.  This is not an easy call, especially since there is no consistent case law about it.

However, interestingly, Brazil defines “undercover operations” much more narrowly than does the United States so that these strict requirements only apply to certain undercover conduct.  Brazilian statutes (Laws 11.343/06 and 12.850/13) use the term “infiltrated agent” to define the regulated investigative activity, not “undercover agent.”  Thus, the definition only applies to those operations that involve agents assuming false identities to infiltrate criminal organizations. The use of plain clothes officers to buy drugs without the use of a false identification would not be regulated by the statute. In such cases, the need for a warrant is not even discussed in the case law. (STJ, AgRg no AREsp 1.956/SP, Rel. Ministra MARIA THEREZA DE ASSIS MOURA, SEXTA TURMA, julgado em 21/06/2011, DJe 01/07/2011). Thus, the kind of conduct reported in The Times, for example —  the presence of a police officer in the middle of a political protest —  would not be considered conduct by an “infiltrated agent,” as long as a false identity is not used to allow infiltration in a criminal organization. On the other hand, an officer who pretends to be a child to uncover a criminal organization involving pedophilia in the internet, for example, would indeed be subject to the warrant requirement.

From the defense perspective, there is protection against entrapment (article 17 of the Brazilian Criminal Code). For example, a defendant will not be liable for possessing a child porn photo sent by an undercover agent if the court finds the defendant was entrapped. However, this defense will not protect the Defendant if he possesses other photos, for example.

In the United States, of course, police and prosecutorial use of undercover agents is limited only by the broad and permissive boundaries of the due process clause. SeeUnited States v. Cuervelo, 949 F.2d 559 (2d Cir. 1991). Unlike Brazil, in the United States there is no requirement of a warrant or of judicial supervision of any kind regarding undercover agents. In fact, the Supreme Court has made clear that the use of undercover agents – even when the agent wears a wire – does not constitute a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (1963); On Lee v. United States, 343 U.S. 747 (1952); Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (1966); and United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971). As the Court has reasoned, betrayal by ones associates is always a risk, so there is  no  expectation of privacy in those interactions if they involve an undercover agent. Given that there is no “search,” there is no warrant requirement or a requirement even of probable cause or reasonable suspicion to use undercover agents to obtain evidence. Nor are there any statutory limits to the practice. The only limitation is whether an undercover officer’s behavior “shocks the conscience” of the court. Readers will remember the stomach-pumping case that actually did shock the conscience of the Supreme Court. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which attaches after arraignment, may limit the use of undercover agents – but only after charges have been brought and the defendant has been arraigned. That is because, under Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), and its progeny, law enforcement may not contact a defendant without going through defense counsel.

In the United States, now, there is not likely to be a consensus for restricting the use of undercover agents, although the discussion of this issue in the press is interesting. New York Times reports that the use of undercover agents is widening and now extends anywhere from sending fake protesters to demonstrations in front of the Supreme Court to creating false identities for doctors and ministers to investigate welfare or other fraud. Until now, at least, we have balanced our interests in privacy, our separation-of-powers-based willingness to give our prosecutors and police tremendous discretion in law enforcement, and our desire for crime control in favor of discretion and crime control. Brazil’s restriction of undercover intrusions to cases involving organized crime, narcotics, terrorism and other transnational crimes that are the object of international treaties – to seriously dangerous organizational criminal behavior that is – should command our attention. Maybe we should tailor the intrusion to protect against serious criminal conduct while protecting the increasingly shrinking sphere of privacy for the rest of us. Certainly, Brazil’s requirement of a showing that there is no less intrusive means to secure the evidence sought should not be a seriously difficult evidential burden. Given the U.S. courts’ willingness to impose only the most nominal restrictions, the way to do this, of course, would be the way Brazil accomplished it – through legislation.