2 Defendants in Whitmer Kidnapping Case Found Guilty in Retrial
After an embarrassing failure for the FBI counterterrorism program, federal prosecutors won convictions against two of the men accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

It took two tries, but the federal government obtained guilty verdicts yesterday for two of the men accused of plotting to kidnap Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
The Detroit Free Press reports that a jury deliberated for eight hours over two days before finding Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr. guilty of kidnapping conspiracy and conspiracy to possess weapons of mass destruction. They face life in prison.
Fox and Croft were standing trial again after a jury deadlocked on the charges against them in April. Two of their fellow co-defendants, Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta, were acquitted in that earlier trial—a stunning failure for federal prosecutors and the FBI's counter-terrorism program, which have been racking up wins in similar cases for two decades.
The arrest of the Whitmer plotters a month before the 2020 presidential election grabbed national headlines and raised fears of rising right-wing extremism. The men, outraged by Whitmer's COVID-19 policies, discussed different plots to kidnap her, blow up a bridge to slow down the police response, and hold a show trial for the governor on treason charges. Videos showed them training in tactical gear with rifles.
But the case against the plotters began to unravel as court documents and news investigations revealed that the FBI used no less than a dozen confidential informants and two undercover agents to gather intel on the group. As Reason's Jacob Sullum noted, "during a June 2020 meeting highlighted by the FBI, for example, it was an informant who argued that kidnapping was necessary." One of the lead FBI agents working the case was fired after being charged in state court with assault for allegedly beating his wife after returning home from a swingers party at a hotel.
Defense attorneys argued that the alleged conspiracy was never a coherent plan, nor did their clients agree to carry it out. It was all just "rough talk" from delusional and often drunk men, transformed into a terror plot by scheming FBI agents.
The strategy worked the first time around. Not the second.
Reason subscribers can currently read my story in the latest issue of the magazine, "It's (Almost) Always the Feds," about the FBI's long history, including in the Whitmer case, of using its sprawling network of paid informants to egg on would-be radicals. (If you're not a subscriber, you'll just have to wait for it to come out from behind the paywall and think about your poor choices.)
As I wrote in that piece, the acquittals and mistrial in the original prosecution of the Whitmer plotters was a stinging embarrassment for the feds, but it "was ultimately the decision of 12 individuals, not a public referendum on the FBI informant program. Another jury may well convict based on the same evidence put forward in the first trial."
And so they did. Despite persistent criticisms from civil liberties groups that the FBI is manufacturing terror plots to ensnare young men with limited to no ability to carry them out, the federal government has been enormously successful in prosecuting these kinds of cases because of the high bar to prove entrapment, which requires showing not only that the government induced the crime but that the defendant was not predisposed to engage in it.
The government capitalized on this during the second trial by focusing more on the defendants' violent rhetoric prior to contact with FBI informants.
"How could they possibly be entrapped?" Nils Kessler, a federal prosecutor, said during closing arguments, according to The New York Times. "They were obviously predisposed."
These sorts of cases are the result of a post-9/11 rollback of Watergate-era restrictions on when the FBI can investigate people. The FBI will keep bringing these cases of government-assisted or totally invented terror plots, and federal prosecutors will keep winning convictions, as long as those policies remain in place.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Rooting for the FBI again. Wonder if there is some common thread amongst the FBI good vs bad articles?
FBI is bad, unless it’s going after icky conservatives and Republicans. – Reason Editors
*And, Reason Editors are absolutely, definitely NOT far left progressives.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. (eas-02) I have not ever thought like it would even achievable however my confidant mate got $27k only in four weeks easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail. Look extra details:-
.
Going this web-page;>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
Preach on brother, preach on. You know you’re doing the Lord’s work. Those who think Reason editors “lean left” – that they vent their snark for Republicans and have an extra special bit of bile for Trump supporters are disloyal and covert supporters of Putin, and should be put in front of General Clapper for sentencing.
Shame I can’t upvote you.
There’s no rooting for the FBI here. Au contraire, it sneers at them.
Yeah. I thought maybe they were at first as well, but reading through CJ clearly is taking a stance that this is bullshit. I think my confusion is that I’m increasingly trained to read relatively neutral reporting as supportive. And the first half is pretty much straight reporting.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (anu–218) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
———->>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
There’s plenty of circumstances where Reason deserves castigation; not here.
What the judge told the jury.
“The crucial question in entrapment cases is whether the government persuaded a defendant who was not already willing to commit the crime to go ahead and commit it,” U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker told jurors, who are set to begin deliberations next week in the retrial of Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr. on charges they plotted to kidnap Whitmer out of anger over her handling of the pandemic.
This means essentially there is never entrapment since if you choose to go along with the plan, you were always willing to.
The jury was also banned of hearing of the prior acquittal and FBI messages.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/judge-retrial-whitmer-kidnapping-plot-suspects-jury-cant-hear-acquittals-fbi-informant-texts
Sounds like it’s tee’d up to be reversed on appeal, but that will go under the radar.
After the midterms.
The first part of that is proper-you can’t use prior decisions to infer a verdict. But there was the possibility of that information coming up during trial anyway, depending on what witnesses said, and the judge would allow discussion of it if it came up.
The second part of that, the FBI messages, that’s probably appealable error. Information from the informant to the FBI as part of their investigation includes exculpatory evidence, including Big Dan’s instructions from his handler about what to tell them and how to keep pushing them. That’s absolutely evidence the jury should have heard.
Not if your only goal are political prosecution victories and silencing your enemies.
“…how to keep pushing them…”
If they were willing to commit the crime, they wouldn’t need pushing.
The judge also limited the response time for the defense. A truly amazing move.
The judge has mandated that the defense can take only as long as the prosecution in questioning witnesses — not twice as long, or even three times as long, which happened with one FBI witness in the now weeklong trial.
https://news.yahoo.com/defense-blasts-judge-whitmer-kidnap-210320369.html
I saw that and it made literally no sense.
Providing a narrative takes significantly less time than disproving it does.
I don’t even see how it is constitutional.
I agree. It should be reversed on appeal.
That’s also bullshit. There’s rules about how you’re supposed to limit a cross-examination to the topics covered in direct, but when you’re talking about a criminal trial, the defense should be allowed to have sufficient time to question them as long as they aren’t being repetitive. FBI witnesses are obviously not going to be very cooperative with defense attorneys.
The judge apparently changed the rules to have the defense prove the FBI manipulated them and that they were resistant to the crimes for it to be entrapment. Generally it is the prosecution who would be forced to show the defendants were willing prior to FBI involvement.
“It is sometimes necessary for a government agent to pretend to be a criminal,” Jonker told the jury. “Did they show reluctance? And if they did, were they overcome by persuasion? If yes, how much persuasion did the government use?”
To prove entrapment, Fox and Croft must prove that the plan and momentum for the crime was introduced by the FBI, and that they were not already willing or predisposed to commit the crime.
https://thepostmillennial.com/judge-to-jury-okay-to-convict-defendants-in-whitmer-kidnapping-case-even-if-it-was-impossible-for-them-to-successfully-complete-crime
The FBI agents and informants involved in the plot regularly provided marijuana and money to the suspects, getting high with them before talking about the plan. A female FBI agent often brought Croft to militia training sessions and slept in the same hotel room bed on those occasions in an apparent attempt to entice him .
Judge Jonker repeatedly interrupted the defense lawyers during their cross-examination of the government witnesses, cut short their questioning, scolded them for what he thought was redundant and irrelevant questioning, and, by the end of the trial, imposed a time limit: The defense could only take as long with witnesses as the prosecution did, reported Detroit Free Press.
It is sometimes necessary for a government agent to pretend to be a criminal,
Seems unethical, because it is.
Seems unethical, because it is.
Not necessarily. The idea is for the informant to be a fly on the wall i.e. they’re in the room listening to everything, but nonessential to the process. Three guys in a car, and the two in front are real criminals, one of them driving and the other one shooting out the window at the victim, and then the third guy in the back seat is the informant. Even if he participates to some degree, the other two would definitely have done it without him.
It’s problematic because the bad guys know this, so they identify the guy who’s just there and demand that he do something that a cop wouldn’t do, like commit an assault/murder. That problem is solved if the informant is the ringleader, but if the ringleader is the only one pushing things forward then how do you even know, let alone prove in court, that the others would have done something on their own?
The problem here is that the “informant” was actually directing the crime and the other guys were in the “back seat” not doing much of anything.
Literally, not figuratively, how Hitler hooked up with the Nazi Party…
“…including Big Dan’s instructions from his handler about what to tell them and how to keep pushing them…”
That “fly on the wall” is armed with a shotgun
The informants probably shouldn’t comprise half of the criminal enterprise, also. Remember that it’s like six Feds and six alleged kidnappers, so the feds could just plot among themselves to advance the plan while the other six are sitting around getting high.
Typical Democrat tactic. Keep changing the rules until they get the desired outcome.
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — Documents unsealed by the judge in the retrial of the men charged with plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer reveal that a juror was suspected and subsequently cleared of possible misconduct as the trial was just beginning.
According to the tip received, at some point before the trial, the juror told a colleague that they had received a juror summons, saying they hoped to be picked for the upcoming kidnap plot trial.
The recently unsealed document explains the report alleged that, “the subject Juror expressed a strong opinion about the Defendants’ guilt and indicated that if chosen, he or she would make sure that the Defendants were found guilty.”
https://www.fox17online.com/news/governor-kidnapping-plot/juror-was-suspected-of-possible-misconduct-in-governor-whitmer-kidnap-plot-retrial-allowed-to-remain-on-jury
And finally. The sentencing of a man who pled guilty was delayed until after the trial so he would be a cooperative witness in the retrial.
https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2022/05/prosecutor-asks-to-delay-mans-sentencing-in-gov-whitmer-kidnap-plot-until-he-testifies-at-retrial.html
JesseAZ, although this prosecution wasn’t legally ‘double jeopardy’, it sure in hell looks that way. If these two have the financial wherewithal to appeal, they might have a fighting chance.
For damned sure, those corrupt FBI agents should be put on a stand, cross-examined, and then drawn and quartered (just kidding on drawn & quartered….sort of).
There were so many questionable decisions by this judge that if his misconduct isn’t cited in an appeals I will be shocked.
The fix was in The FBI was humiliated after the first trial, they ensured a conviction this time…with a willing federal judge’s assistance.
Any public interest law firm with a nut in its sack would take on their appeal for free, but as we know, they’ll defend terrorist bombers at Gitmo and run a half billion dollar bail fund for Black Bloc terrorists here at home, but won’t lift a finger on a career-making case if it involves anyone not in the vanguard.
Jeez, they’re not even bothering to pretend this shit isn’t just a paid plug this time around.
en. trap. ment. Flowers By Irene is awful.
Man I’m hearing there are some serious shenanigans going on. If I understand it correctly, 11 of the 12 jurors voted to acquit with on mysterious law professor holding out for conviction… follow that rabbit hole.
Shame they have to go to jail until the Supreme Court reverses. Time limits when facing life in prison? Seriously? ‘…”I’ve never heard of anything that ridiculous in my 33 years of practicing law,” said defense attorney Mike Rataj. “It’s absurd. My cross-examination is not dictated by the government’s direct examination.”…’
To be frank, I would have flatly refused. While under normal circumstances, direct defiance of a judge’s order is a bad things, stating plainly before the jury that this is an outrageous violation of rights would kind of vindicate the point. Contempt of court? Maybe. But it would poison the jury and clearly demonstrate the point.
And Reason/Ciarmella rejoices that the Feds found a judge corrupt enough to join in on the totalitarian political persecution.
All they need is a Mission Accomplished banner and some fucknut to come out and say Ladies and gentlemen, we got him!
Nice ad for the sub, CJ …
two gullible low-functioning morons led by the nose by the FBI found guilty of being suckered into stupid actions that never took place. Amazing job guys.
These sorts of cases are the result of a post-9/11 rollback of Watergate-era restrictions on when the FBI can investigate people.
Something something, nothing to worry about.
Except they’re actually the result of the totalitarian left/establishment wielding power, aided by evil pieces of shit like Reason and Ciarmella
You’re so impotent that it provides a source of amusement to others. A blessing!
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I have not ever thought like it would even achievable however my confidant mate got 13,000 Dollars only in four weeks easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail. Look extra details
going this web-page… https://incomebuzz7.blogspot.com/
My $0.02:
Means, Motive, Oportunity, if the government supplies any one of those 3 it should be considered illegal entrapment.
And yes, I fully understand that this standard will kill nearly all government sting operations. So what, they should go solve real crimes.
Right, I think in legalese they call this but-for causation. Would this attempted crime have happened at all if the FBI wasn’t involved? The informant came up with the plan, made the suggestions, was supplying them money. They likely would never have done anything if the FBI wasn’t pushing them along, and it happened in an election year with political implications.
It’s gross. But federal courts are used to getting the verdicts they want.
“…The informant came up with the plan, made the suggestions, was supplying them money…”
A well-armed and well-financed and well-directed “fly on the wall”.
And not just one, there were like six feds involved with this, remember. So one Fed comes up with it and another Fed tells him it’s a great idea and a third fed says he’ll help plan it and a fourth one suggests getting some weapons, and the first one comes back and says he can get weapons. It’s a circle-jerk of entrapment.
I could see providing means not automatically being fatal to entrapment but it would need to be limited. If the only thing preventing you from hiring a hit man was $1,000 then I could see you going forward without my $1,000 and me giving you cash isn’t fatal if I’m not egging you on. Now if I need to supply the plan, specialized equipment and training then I’m well over the edge.
“I could see providing means not automatically being fatal to entrapment but it would need to be limited.”
No, LEO’s would push the boundaries and the courts would give even if only a little bit at a time until the exceptions eat the rule.
A cop loaning someone money to hire a hit man they couldn’t otherwise afford is still entrapment.
More government corruption.
Does this verdict mean law enforcement authorities now have the green light to expand their bait car fleets?
Now, if you see a wallet on a park bench, just keep walking.
What was their ransom demand? Pawn shop loan forgiveness?
“…The arrest of the Whitmer plotters a month before the 2020 presidential election grabbed national headlines and raised fears of rising right-wing extremism…”
When it should have convinced fence-sitters of FBI corruption.
“The men, outraged by Whitmer’s COVID-19 policies, discussed different plots to kidnap her, blow up a bridge to slow down the police response, and hold a show trial for the governor on treason charges.”
No they didn’t that was people working for the FBI.
Why, the bitch done tricked me!
Here I was about to fly the black flag and start cutting throats in the name of FEEEDOM when it turns out I been cucked by those smartypants g-men!
NO FAIR WANT DO OVER NO FAIR!!!!
I’ve had more than one trial attorney friend tell me that “sensitive” cases, or close cases are won or lost during the voir dire process. You might have even notice the tendency of W.D. of C. juries to reach different verdicts that south Florida verdicts might reach with the same evidence.
The trial of those two malefactors might have been boring, but I’d have given a fiver to watch the jury selection.
Endless trials in bad venues with no change of venue granted until the government gets a partisan jury and the result they want, locking up any and all political opposition.