A defense lawyer aggressively cross-examined a government informer in federal court on Monday about scores of conversations he had with James Cromitie, charged with conspiring to bomb synagogues and shoot down military planes last year.

The conversations included talk about money, guns, Islam and religious justifications for violence. The defense lawyer, Vincent L. Briccetti, made the same claim repeatedly as he questioned the informer, Shahed Hussain, about a range of volatile subjects: “You brought that up, didn’t you?”

Several times, Mr. Hussain said he did.

As the trial of Mr. Cromitie and three co-defendants entered its fifth week, Mr. Briccetti spent hours on Monday finally broaching the heart of the defense case: that Mr. Hussain and his Federal Bureau of Investigation handlers fostered a crime that Mr. Cromitie and the other men were not predisposed to commit.

A critical day in the trial resulted in angry exchanges and frayed nerves. In his confrontation with Mr. Hussain, Mr. Briccetti did his best to throw the witness off balance by cutting him off or calling him a liar. Mr. Hussain, battered by days of cross-examination, seemed to find his nerve again, calmly challenging assertions by Mr. Briccetti.

Prosecutors have contended that the defendants — Mr. Cromitie, Laguerre Payen, David Williams VI and Onta Williams — embraced, on their own, the violent opportunity presented to them by Mr. Hussain. The four men face charges that include conspiracy and attempting to use weapons of mass destruction.

The defense — entrapment — has rarely, if ever, been successful in terrorism cases since Sept. 11, 2001. Even so, the hearing on Monday started with a reminder of that issue. Before Mr. Hussain took the stand, a juror told the judge that on Thursday, as the jury was leaving Federal District Court in Manhattan, a woman yelled at a few members of the panel, saying, “You need to figure out the difference between entrapment and terror.” The judge, Colleen McMahon, told the jurors that in the future they would be escorted out of the courthouse.

Defense lawyers submitted a letter to the judge asserting that Mr. Hussain had perjured himself, lying about his financial dealings, his immigration status and “his very identity.” They asked that prosecutors be required to investigate and correct any perjury.

While the defense questioning had focused on Mr. Hussain’s credibility, Mr. Briccetti forcefully shifted the topic to the informer’s conduct during an 11-month F.B.I. sting operation in Newburgh, N.Y.

In doing so, he focused on the differences between the two men, repeatedly saying that Mr. Hussain was rich and his client was poor. The informer was educated and knowledgeable about Islam, Mr. Briccetti said, while Mr. Cromitie was a con man with little formal education.

Citing a conversation between Mr. Hussain and Mr. Cromitie in October 2008, Mr. Briccetti said Mr. Hussain told Mr. Cromitie that infidels were killing Muslims and that “Allah will take care of us.” Mr. Briccetti suggested that Mr. Hussain was using Islam to justify violence.

“Islam doesn’t teach that,” Mr. Briccetti said.

“It all depends on the interpretation,” Mr. Hussain replied.

In another conversation, Mr. Briccetti tried to soften the impact of numerous anti-Semitic remarks made by his client, suggesting that it was Mr. Hussain who had shifted the conversation in that direction.

Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!

(Read More: NY Times)