Previous literature has analyzed entrapment in post-9/11 jihadi terrorism cases, but has neglected similarly compelling entrapment claims among left-wing terrorism defendants. The Article bridges this gap through an in-depth analysis of the four post-9/11 left-wing terrorism cases involving an informant or undercover agent. Based on a review of these cases, the Article concludes that at least three of the four cases had strong entrapment claims, and that realistically, none of the defendants in the four cases would have committed any terrorist offense without government prompting.
A comparative analysis of different types of domestic terrorism finds broad similarities in the characteristics of entrapment claims in jihadi, left-wing, and right-wing terrorism cases. However, jihadi entrapment cases are far more numerous, left-wing and jihadi entrapment claims are considerably stronger and more prevalent than right-wing claims, and left-wing terrorism cases feature certain informant tactics rarely if ever found in other cases. The Article situates the left-wing entrapment claims in the context of wider government attempts to target left-wing activists, and provides an initial analysis of the main factors leading to questionable sting operations in left-wing terrorism cases.