Gala Tickets Remain! Join Alana Hadid on Oct. 3 in Dallas. Get Tickets Now

USA v. Baptiste (Criminal Docket #: 1:18-cr-20613)

USA v. Baptiste

Case Description:

Samuel Baptiste was targeted by the FBI in an undercover sting operation. The operation was abruptly concluded when Baptiste identified two of the undercover operatives as FBI employees. Baptiste, a convicted felon, was initially charged with unlawful possession of a firearm, based on his going to a rifle range at the invitation of an FBI undercover. When Baptiste was sentenced to the minimum for this crime, the government brought a second indictment charging him with material support for terrorism based on distribution of bomb making material that, again, the FBI undercovers had solicited. Baptiste was charged on 6 counts:  

  • Counts One-Four: Violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 842(p)(2)(A): Distributing Information Pertaining to Explosives 
  • Count Five: Violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2339B(a)(1): Attempting to Provide Material Support to a Foreign Terrorist Organization 
  • Count Six: Violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2339B(a)(1): Attempting to Provide Material Support to Terrorists   
OUTCOME
Baptiste ultimately pled guilty to Count Six: a single count of 18 USC 2339B (the lowest charged offense). All other charges were dismissed. Baptiste received 15 yearsadditional confinement. However, at the time of sentencing, he had 5 years of credit.   

Client Name:  Samuel Baptiste
Case Name:  United States of America v. Baptiste
Date Filed:  Indictment Filed: 07/19/2018 
Date Closed:  Sentencing: 01/10/2022 
Legal Department: National Security Criminal Defense Center 
Age: N/A
Gender:  Male
Race/Ethnicity:  Haitian 
Location:  Miami, Florida; Florida Southern District Court 
Occupation: Security Guard
Issues:  Because Baptiste’s was the product of the FBI’s solicitations rather his own initiatives, potential entrapment defense existed. That defense, however, was undercut by the fact that Baptiste was a convicted felon and had made numerous statements supporting political violence. The secondary issue was whether the evidence was sufficient to establish a violation of 18 USC 842 (p) (2) (A): Distributing Information pertaining to explosives. And material support of a terrorist organization in violation of 18 USC 2339B.
MLFA’s Role MLFA was contacted by Baptiste’s court-appointed counsel, Simon Patrick Dray. Mr. Dray was Mr. Baptiste’s third appointed counsel. At Mr. Dray’s invitation, MLFA joined Mr. Baptiste’s trial team as co-counsel and working with Mr. Dray, helped to shape a trial strategy that ultimately resulted in a favorable plea agreement for Mr. Baptiste.  
Visit NSCDC Homepage