The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D was convicted by a jury of four counts of conspiracy, arising from a plot to bomb a New York City subway station. D's sole theory of defense at trial was that he was entrapped by a confidential informant, Osama Eldawoody. In a Rule 29 motion, D made arguments that: (1) there was evidence of inducement because it was the confidential informant who talked him into taking steps to engage in violent conduct; (2) there was no evidence of defendant's predisposition in the government's direct case; and (3) the government's rebuttal evidence, i.e., testimony by the undercover officer, was insufficient to meet the government's burden of proving predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial included the testimony of a cooperating witness, James Elshafay; a confidential informant, Osama Eldawoody; and the New York City police detective supervising him, Steven Andrews; an undercover New York City police officer identified as Kamil Pasha; and many hours of recordings of conversations between D, the cooperating witness, and the confidential informant. The only evidence D offered on predisposition was his own testimony that the confidential informant constantly talked to him about the war in Iraq and inflamed his anger against the United States and its treatment of Muslims by showing him pictures of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Elshafay testified that D made statements indicating his willingness to do a bombing in New York City as revenge for America's ill treatment of Muslims. Elshafay also testified that when he told D of his plan to blow up the bridges connecting to Staten Island, D stated he would see what he could do to get the plan going. Elshafay's plan was eventually abandoned when, as D himself testified, D came up with the plan to blow up the 34th Street subway station. The recordings of D's statements regarding the subway plan also showed that D was the principal designer of the plan. D was convicted and filed post-trial motions for a new trial and or judgment of acquittal.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.