Academic

A study in entrapment, or just shoddy investigative technique?

By Tung Yin

Yesterday's Washington Post has a story about a federal lawsuit by a former federal informant against the FBI, in which the informant alleges that he was trained to "entrap" Muslims by infiltrating a Southern California mosque.  Perhaps the most telling line from the news account is this:

In the Irvine case, Monteilh's mission as an informant backfired. Muslims were so alarmed by his talk of violent jihad that they obtained a restraining order against him.

Or maybe this:

"We started hearing that he was saying weird things," said Omar Kurdi, a Loyola Law School student who knew Monteilh from the mosque and gym. "He would walk up to one of my friends and say, 'It's good that you guys are getting ready for the jihad.'"

Based on the actions by Monteilh -- the informant -- the government did indict one mosque member for making false statements on an immigration document and other immigration-related violations, but even those charges were ultimately dismissed (without prejudice) on the government's own motion.  It sounds like this doesn't count as an instance of an entrapment defense actually succeeding because the government's stated reasons in the AUSA's affidavit were "[e]videntiary issues, including the unavailability of an overseas witness. . . ."

However, in reading Monteilh's affidavit in a motion to set aside the restraining order, it sounds like the Irvine case might have been one ripe for an entrapment defense, if Monteilh is telling the truth.  He alleges:

At  the direction of Agents Paul Allen and Kevin Armstrong  I used  the Islamic Center as a Forum to advance an agenda that involved organizing terrorist activitics, making reference to "jihad" (Holy War) and organizing terrorist plots and/or activities.

Well, that is, if any mosque member had taken Montiehl up on his agenda.

Since the charges against Niazi don't pertain to Montiehl's agenda per se, the collapse of the indictment is probably due, as the Post story suggests, due to the government's unwillingness to base its case so heavily on Montiehl, who would become that much more important given the unavailability of the overseas witness.

Full post as published by The Yin Blog on December 06, 2010 (boomark / email).