Federal Appeals Court Confirms Convictions in Michigan Governor Kidnapping Case
Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr. contended that the evidence against them was insufficient for a conviction.
On April 1, a U.S. appeals court affirmed the convictions of the leaders involved in the conspiracy to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.
Fox and Croft argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that there was inadequate evidence to support their convictions on charges of conspiracy to kidnap and conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction.
“The jury was presented with numerous video and audio recordings showing the defendants making threats of violence, organizing and participating in training sessions, bringing weapons and materials, and planning the abduction without hesitation,” stated the per curiam ruling.
The panel members included U.S. Circuit Judges Joan L. Larsen, Chad A. Readler, and Stephanie Dawkins Davis.
In Fox’s appeal, his attorney claimed that “Fox’s defense was centered on the assertion that he was entrapped and not predisposed to break the law,” but stated that U.S. District Judge Robert J. Jonker improperly restricted the admission of communications between an informant and the informant’s FBI handler, as well as limiting the informant’s statements, which undermined the defense.
Related Stories
The appeals court concluded that Jonker did make an error by restricting the informant’s statements.
While the judge referenced two rulings to justify his decision, the Sixth Circuit panel noted that “no such limitation” exists in either case.
Despite this error, the ruling stated it was harmless, as the defendants “had other options to bolster their entrapment defense and opted not to pursue them.” The panel found the evidence supporting the claim of entrapment to be weak and asserted that government attorneys “adequately demonstrated that the jury’s verdict was not ‘substantially swayed’ by the district court’s mistake.”
Attorneys representing Fox and Croft argued that the judge incorrectly barred them from questioning a potentially biased juror and restricted the time allowed for cross-examining another individual implicated in the scheme.
The appeals court maintained that the judge’s decision not to conduct a hearing for questioning the juror was valid, given the lack of credible evidence of bias. They also stated that the judge’s limits on cross-examination were reasonable and within the authority of judges.
Requests for comments from attorneys representing Fox and Croft went unanswered.