In this case we see a long and concerted effort to implicate these brothers in a plot that they apparently knew nothing about. They were convicted, it seems, primarily based on the jihadist videos they watched (which were played for the jury, which included a parent who lost their son in Afghanistan, who later commented how one of the videos showing Americans being shot made him think it was his son being shot).

And even worse, in this case it seems like it was as much (if not primarily) about winning political points, for example, for then US Attorney Chris Christie.

So while I had read about some more clear-cut cases which seemed to involve an appropriate use of under-cover officers and informants, this case certainly seems to go far beyond that point, and exploited emotional jurists to win a very dubious conviction.