First Circuit upholds Mehanna decision

8/14/2019 First Circuit upholds Mehanna decision

1/81

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1461

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

TAREK MEHANNA,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Geor ge A. O' Tool e, J r . , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howar d, Sel ya and Thompson,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Sabi n Wi l l et t , wi t h whom Susan Baker Manni ng, J ul i e Si l vaPal mer , Bi ngham McCut chen LLP, J . W. Car ney, J r . , and Car ney &Bassi l wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Al ex Abdo, Hi na Shamsi , Mat t hew R. Segal , and Sar ah R. Wunschon br i ef f or Amer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on and Amer i can Ci vi lLi ber t i es Uni on of Massachuset t s, ami ci cur i ae.

Par di ss Kebr i aei , Baher Azmy, and Amna Akbar on br i ef f orCent er f or Const i t ut i onal Ri ght s, ami cus cur i ae.Nancy Ger t ner , Davi d M. Por t er , and St even R. Mor r i son on

br i ef f or Nat i onal Associ at i on of Cr i mi nal Def ense Lawyer s, ami cuscur i ae.

E. J oshua Rosenkr anz and Or r i ck, Her r i ngt on & Sut cl i f f e LLPon br i ef f or Schol ar s, Publ i sher s, and Tr ansl at or s i n t he Fi el ds of I sl am and t he Mi ddl e East , ami ci cur i ae.

Case: 12-1461 Document: 00116610582 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2013 Entry ID: 5779661


2/81

El i zabet h D. Col l er y, At t or ney, Appel l at e Sect i on, Cr i mi nalDi vi si on, U. S. Depar t ment of J ust i ce, wi t h whom Myt hi l i Raman,Act i ng Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Cr i mi nal Di vi si on, Deni s J .McI ner ney, Act i ng Deput y Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Cr i mi nalDi vi si on, Car men M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, J ohn P. Car l i n,Act i ng Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Nat i onal Secur i t y Di vi si on, and

J oseph F. Pal mer , At t or ney, Nat i onal Secur i t y Di vi si on, wer e onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.

November 13, 2013



3/81

SELYA, Circuit Judge. Ter r or i sm i s t he moder n- day

equi val ent of t he buboni c pl ague: i t i s an exi st ent i al t hr eat .

Pr edi ct abl y, t hen, t he gover nment ' s ef f or t s t o combat t er r or i sm

t hr ough t he enf or cement of t he cr i mi nal l aws wi l l be f i er ce.

Somet i mes, t hose ef f or t s r equi r e a cour t t o pat r ol t he f i ne l i ne

bet ween vi t al nat i onal secur i t y concer ns and f or bi dden

encr oachment s on const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed f r eedoms of speech and

associ at i on. Thi s i s such a case.

As i f t hat wer e not enough, t he case pr esent s a wel t er of

ot her i ssues. At t he r i sk of si ngl i ng out one of many, we pay

par t i cul ar heed t o t he need t o appr ai se t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

ef f or t s i n t he f ace of an aval anche of emot i onal l y char ged

evi dence t o hol d st eady and t r ue t he del i cat e bal ance bet ween

pr obat i ve val ue and unf ai r l y pr ej udi c i al ef f ect . Thi s appr ai sal i s

especi al l y di f f i cul t i n t er r or i sm cases because i t put s t wo

compet i ng r i ght s on a col l i si on cour se: t he gover nment ' s r i ght t o

pr esent i t s best case i n suppor t of i t s t heor i es of gui l t and t he

def endant ' s r i ght t o be shi el ded f r om unt owar d pr ej udi ce ar i si ng

out of t he i nt r oduct i on of evi dence t hat i s, at one and t he same

t i me, pr obat i ve yet i nf l ammat or y.

The st age can be set qui t e si mpl y. I n t he cour t bel ow,

t he gover nment ai med a bar r age of t er r or i sm- r el at ed char ges at

def endant - appel l ant Tar ek Mehanna. Fol l owi ng a pr ot r act ed t r i al ,

t he j ur y convi ct ed hi m on al l count s. The def endant , abl y

- 3-



4/81

r epr esent ed and suppor t ed by a cot er i e of ear nest ami ci , chal l enges

not onl y t hese convi ct i ons but al so hi s 210- mont h sent ence. Af t er

car ef ul consi der at i on of t he massi ve r ecor d, t he def endant ' s

pr ol i f i c ar gument s, and t he cont r ol l i ng l aw, we af f i r m.

I. OVERVIEW

We st ar t wi t h an over vi ew of t he char ges l odged agai nst

t he def endant and t hen out l i ne t he t r avel of t he case.

Thi s appeal has i t s genesi s i n an i ndi ct ment r et ur ned by

a f eder al gr and j ur y si t t i ng i n t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s. I n

i t s f i nal f or m, t he i ndi ct ment char ged t he def endant wi t h f our

t er r or i sm- r el at ed count s and t hr ee count s pr emi sed on al l egedl y

f al se st at ement s. The t er r or i sm- r el at ed count s i ncl uded one count

of conspi r acy t o pr ovi de mat er i al suppor t t o al - Qa' i da ( count 1) ;

one count of conspi r acy t o pr ovi de mat er i al suppor t t o t er r or i st s

knowi ng or i nt endi ng i t s use t o be i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 956

and 2332 ( count 2) ; one count of pr ovi di ng and at t empt i ng t o

pr ovi de mat er i al suppor t t o t er r or i st s, knowi ng and i nt endi ng i t s

use t o be i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 956 and 2332 ( count 3) ; and

one count of conspi r acy t o ki l l per sons i n a f or ei gn count r y ( count

4) . The r emai ni ng count s i ncl uded one count of conspi r acy t o make

f al se st at ement s as par t of a conspi r acy t o commi t an of f ense

agai nst t he Uni t ed St at es ( count 5) and t wo count s of knowi ngl y and

wi l l f ul l y maki ng f al se st at ement s t o f eder al of f i cer s ( count s 6 and

7) . See 18 U. S. C. 371, 1001. For t he r eader ' s conveni ence, we

- 4-



5/81

have annexed t o t hi s opi ni on an appendi x del i neat i ng t he per t i nent

por t i ons of t he r el evant st at ut es.

Count s 1 t hr ough 3 ( t he conspi r acy and mat er i al suppor t

char ges) wer e based on t wo separ at e cl ust er s of act i vi t i es. The

f i r st cl ust er cent er ed on t he def endant ' s t r avel t o Yemen. 1 We

br i ef l y descr i be t hat t r i p.

I n 2004, t he def endant , an Amer i can ci t i zen, was 21 year s

ol d and l i vi ng wi t h hi s par ent s i n Sudbur y, Massachuset t s. On

Febr uar y 1, he f l ew f r om Bost on t o t he Uni t ed Ar ab Emi r at es wi t h

hi s associ at es, Kar eem Abuzahr a and Ahmad Abousamr a. 2 Abuzahr a

r et ur ned t o t he Uni t ed St at es s oon t her eaf t er but t he def endant and

Abousamr a cont i nued on t o Yemen i n sear ch of a t er r or i st t r ai ni ng

camp. They r emai ned t her e f or a week but wer e unabl e t o l ocat e a

camp. The def endant t hen r et ur ned home, whi l e Abousamr a event ual l y

r eached I r aq.

The second cl ust er of act i vi t i es was t r ansl at i on- cent r i c.

I n 2005, t he def endant began t o t r ansl at e Ar ab- l anguage mat er i al s

i nt o Engl i sh and post hi s t r ansl at i ons on a websi t e at - Ti byan

t hat compr i sed an onl i ne communi t y f or t hose sympat het i c t o al -

Qa' i da and Sal af i - J i hadi per spect i ves. Websi t e member s shar ed

1 Thi s cl ust er of act i vi t i es al so compr i ses t he f oundat i on f orcount 4.

2 Abousamr a was char ged as a def endant i n t hi s case butabsconded i n December of 2006. For aught t hat appear s, he r emai nsa f ugi t i ve.

- 5-



6/81

opi ni ons, vi deos, t ext s, and ki ndr ed mat er i al s i n onl i ne f or ums.

At l east some of f er i ngs t hat t he def endant t r ansl at ed const i t ut ed

al - Qa' i da- gener at ed medi a and mat er i al s suppor t i ve of al - Qa' i da

and/ or j i had. 3

The f al se st at ement count s ( count s 5 t hr ough 7) r el at ed

t o st at ement s t hat t he def endant made dur i ng t he cour se of an

i nvest i gat i on by t he Feder al Bur eau of I nvest i gat i on ( FBI ) i nt o hi s

act i vi t i es and t hose of hi s conf eder at es. Thi s i nvest i gat i on began

i n or ar ound 2006. The st at ement s speci f i ed i n t he i ndi ct ment

concer ned t he wher eabout s and act i vi t i es of one Dani el Mal donado,

as wel l as t he pur pose and ul t i mat e dest i nat i on of t he def endant ' s

t r i p t o Yemen.

Af t er consi der abl e pr et r i al ski r mi shi ng, not mat er i al

her e, t r i al commenced. I t l ast ed some 37 days. The di st r i ct cour t

r ef used t o gr ant j udgment of acqui t t al on any of t he seven count s.

The j ur y convi ct ed t he def endant on al l of t hem, and t he di st r i ct

cour t i mposed a 210- mont h t er m of i mmur ement .

Thi s t i mel y appeal ensued. I n i t , t he def endant

chal l enges hi s convi ct i ons, var i ous evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs, and hi s

sent ence. We addr ess bel ow t he mor e subst ant i al component s of t hi s

assever at i onal ar r ay. A f ew poi nt s ar e not addr essed at al l

3 Whi l e " j i had" i s a l i ngui s t i cal l y pr ot ean t er m t hat mayencompass bot h vi ol ent and nonvi ol ent act s, t he r ecor d makes cl eart hat t he def endant used t he t er m t o r ef er t o vi ol ent j i had andt hat i s t he meani ng t hat we ascr i be t o i t t hr oughout t hi s opi ni on.

- 6-



7/81

because we have f ound t hemt o be i nsuf f i ci ent l y devel oped, pat ent l y

mer i t l ess, or bot h. I n addi t i on, t he ami ci have at t empt ed t o r ai se

some i ssues not pr eser ved by t he def endant . We di sr egar d t hose

at t empt s. The l aw i s set t l ed t hat ami ci cannot or di nar i l y

i nt r oduce i nt o a case i ssues not br i ef ed and ar gued by t he

appel l ant . See Uni t ed St at es v. Chi ar adi o, 684 F. 3d 265, 284 n. 7

( 1st Ci r . ) ( "[ W] e adher e t o t he est abl i shed pr i nci pl e t hat an

ami cus may not ' i nt er j ect i nt o a case i ssues whi ch t he l i t i gant s,

what ever t hei r r easons mi ght be, have chosen t o i gnor e. ' " ( quot i ng

Lane v. Fi r st Nat ' l Bank of Bos. , 871 F. 2d 166, 175 ( 1st Ci r .

1989) ) ) , cer t . deni ed, 133 S. Ct . 589 ( 2012) . Thi s case pr esent s

no occasi on f or depar t i ng f r om t hi s gener al r ul e.

II. THE TERRORISM-RELATED COUNTS

The cent er pi ece of t he def endant ' s chal l enge t o hi s

convi ct i ons on t he f our t er r or i sm- r el at ed count s i s hi s bi nar y

cl ai m t hat t hese convi ct i ons are nei t her suppor t ed by t he evi dence

nor const i t ut i onal l y per mi ssi bl e.

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence.

We r evi ew de novo chal l enges t o t he suf f i ci ency of t he

evi dence. See Uni t ed St at es v. Gobbi , 471 F. 3d 302, 308 ( 1st Ci r .

2006) . Thi s r evi ew eschews cr edi bi l i t y j udgment s and r equi r es us

t o t ake t he f act s and al l r easonabl e i nf er ences t her ef r om i n t he

l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he j ur y' s ver di ct . See Uni t ed St at es v.

Sepul veda, 15 F. 3d 1161, 1173 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) . Usi ng t hi s l ens, we

- 7-



8/81

must det er mi ne whet her a r at i onal j ur y coul d have f ound t hat t he

gover nment pr oved each el ement of t he cr i mes char ged beyond a

r easonabl e doubt . See i d. To wi t hst and a suf f i ci ency chal l enge,

a gui l t y ver di ct need not be an i nevi t abl e out come; r at her , "i t i s

enough t hat t he f i ndi ng of gui l t dr aws i t s essence f r oma pl ausi bl e

r eadi ng of t he r ecor d. " I d.

To put t he def endant ' s suf f i ci ency chal l enge i nt o a

wor kabl e per spect i ve, i t i s hel pf ul t o t r ace t he anat omy of t he

f our t er r or i sm char ges. Count 1 char ges t he def endant wi t h

conspi r i ng t o vi ol at e 18 U. S. C. 2339B, whi ch pr oscr i bes

" knowi ngl y pr ovi d[ i ng] mat er i al suppor t or r esour ces t o a f or ei gn

t er r or i s t or gani zat i on. " I d. 2339B( a) ( 1) . To sat i sf y t he i nt ent

r equi r ement of sect i on 2339B, a def endant must have " knowl edge

about t he or gani zat i on' s connect i on t o t er r or i sm. " Hol der v.

Humani t ar i an Law Pr oj ect ( HLP) , 130 S. Ct . 2705, 2717 ( 2010) . A

speci f i c i nt ent t o advance t he or gani zat i on' s t er r or i s t ac t i vi t i es

i s not essent i al . See i d. ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Al Kassar ,

660 F. 3d 108, 129 ( 2d Ci r . 2011) ( i dent i f yi ng " t wo expr ess s ci ent er

r equi r ement s: t hat t he ai d be i nt ent i onal and t hat t he def endant

know t he or gani zat i on he i s ai di ng i s a t er r or i st or gani zat i on or

engages i n act s of t er r or i sm" ) .

I n t hi s case, t he def endant does not di sput e t hat al -

Qa' i da was and i s a f or ei gn t er r or i st or gani zat i on ( FTO) . Nor

coul d he cr edi bl y do so. See Redesi gnat i on of For ei gn Ter r or i st

- 8-



9/81

Or gani zat i ons, 68 Fed. Reg. 56, 860, 56, 862 ( Oct . 2, 2003) ;

Redesi gnat i on of For ei gn Ter r or i st Or gani zat i on, 66 Fed. Reg.

51, 088, 51, 089 ( Oct . 5, 2001) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Far hane,

634 F. 3d 127, 135 n. 7 ( 2d Ci r . 2011) . By l i ke t oken, t he r ecor d

l eaves no doubt t hat t he def endant was awar e of al - Qa' i da' s s t at us.

Count 2 char ges t he def endant wi t h conspi r i ng t o vi ol at e

18 U. S. C. 2339A, whi ch pr oscr i bes " pr ovi d[ i ng] mat er i al suppor t

or r esour ces . . . , knowi ng or i nt endi ng t hat t hey ar e t o be used

i n pr epar at i on f or , or i n car r yi ng out , " cer t ai n ot her cr i mi nal

act i vi t i es. I d. 2339A( a) . The i nt ent r equi r ement under sect i on

2339A di f f er s somewhat f r om t he i nt ent r equi r ement under sect i on

2339B: t o be gui l t y under sect i on 2339A, t he def endant must have

" pr ovi de[ d] suppor t or r esour ces wi t h t he knowl edge or i nt ent t hat

such r esour ces be used t o commi t speci f i c vi ol ent cr i mes. " Uni t ed

St at es v. St ewar t , 590 F. 3d 93, 113 ( 2d Ci r . 2009) ( emphasi s i n

or i gi nal ) . Thus, " t he ment al st at e i n sect i on 2339A ext ends bot h

t o t he suppor t i t sel f , and t o t he under l yi ng pur poses f or whi ch t he

suppor t i s gi ven. " I d. at 113 n. 18. As adapt ed t o t he

ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, t he gover nment had t o pr ove t hat t he

def endant had t he speci f i c i nt ent t o pr ovi de mat er i al suppor t ,

knowi ng or i nt endi ng t hat i t woul d be used i n a conspi r acy t o ki l l

per sons abr oad. See 18 U. S. C. 956, 2332.

Count 3 i s cl osel y r el at ed t o count 2. I t char ges t he

def endant wi t h vi ol at i ng, or at t empt i ng t o vi ol at e, 18 U. S. C.

- 9-



10/81

2339A. The di st r i ct cour t i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat i t coul d f i nd

t he def endant gui l t y on count 3 under t heor i es of di r ect l i abi l i t y,

at t empt , ai di ng and abet t i ng, or agency. Because t he par t i es'

ar gument s on appeal t ar get t he at t empt t heor y, we f ocus our

at t ent i on t her e.

Mat er i al suppor t i s def i ned i dent i cal l y f or pur poses of

sect i ons 2339A and 2339B. Such suppor t may t ake var i ous f or ms,

i ncl udi ng ( as ar guabl y per t i nent her e) t he pr ovi si on of

"servi ce[ s] " or " per sonnel . " 18 U. S. C. 2339A( b) ( 1) ,

2339B( g) ( 4) . Wi t h r espect t o t he Yemen t r i p, t he gover nment

accused t he def endant of conspi r i ng t o pr ovi de hi msel f as an al -

Qa' i da recr ui t ( count 1) ; knowi ng or i nt endi ng t he use of t hi s

mat er i al suppor t i n a conspi r acy t o ki l l per sons abr oad ( count 2) ;

and at t empt i ng t o pr ovi de t hi s suppor t , knowi ng or i nt endi ng t hat

i t woul d be used i n such a conspi r acy ( count 3) .

Count 4 bear s a f ami l y r esembl ance t o count s 1 t hr ough 3,

but i t has a sl i ght l y di f f er ent DNA. I t char ges t he def endant wi t h

vi ol at i ng 18 U. S. C. 956, whi ch pr oscr i bes conspi r i ng i n t he

Uni t ed St at es " t o commi t at any pl ace out si de t he Uni t ed St at es an

act t hat woul d const i t ut e t he of f ense of mur der " i f t hat act had

been commi t t ed wi t hi n t he Uni t ed St at es. I d. 956( a) ( 1) . For

pur poses of t hi s st at ut e, i t does not mat t er whet her t he

def endant ' s coconspi r at or s are l ocat ed wi t hi n t he Uni t ed St at es or

abr oad. See i d.

- 10-



11/81

We t ur n next t o t he gover nment ' s pr oof . I n gaugi ng t he

suf f i ci ency of t hat pr oof , we st ar t wi t h t he Yemen t r i p and t he

cl us ter of act i vi t i es sur r oundi ng i t .

The def endant asser t s t hat t hi s t r i p cannot bear t he

wei ght of hi s convi ct i ons on any of t he f our t er r or i sm- r el at ed

count s because t he r ecor d shows not hi ng mor e t han t hat he went t o

Yemen t o pur sue I sl ami c st udi es. The gover nment count er s t hat t he

evi dence r ef l ect s a f ar mor e si ni st er pur pose. The sal i ent

quest i on at l east wi t h r espect t o t he f i r st t hr ee t er r or i sm-

r el at ed count s i s whet her t he r ecor d, vi ewed i n t he l i ght most

agr eeabl e t o t he ver di ct , suppor t s a f i ndi ng t hat t he def endant

conspi r ed t o pr ovi de or at t empt ed t o pr ovi de hi msel f and ot her s as

r ecrui t s ( and, t hus, as mat er i al suppor t ) f or al - Qa' i da' s t er r or i s t

ai ms.

The gover nment ' s evi dence of t he def endant ' s speci f i c

i nt ent wi t h r espect t o hi s Yemen t r i p i ncl uded hi s own act i ons,

di scussi ons wi t h ot her s, coconspi r at or st at ement s, and mat er i al s

t hat t he def endant ei t her kept on hi s comput er or shar ed on t he

I nt er net . The def endant cont ends t hat t hi s evi dence, i n t he

aggr egat e, showed not hi ng mor e t han hi s par t i ci pat i on i n act i vi t i es

pr ot ect ed by t he Fi r st Amendment ( e. g. , di scussi ng pol i t i cs and

r el i gi on, consumi ng medi a r el at ed t o t hose t opi cs, and associ at i ng

wi t h cer t ai n i ndi vi dual s and gr oups) and, t hus, coul d not suppor t

a f i ndi ng of gui l t . See Scal es v. Uni t ed St at es, 367 U. S. 203,

- 11-



12/81

229- 30 ( 1961) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Spock, 416 F. 2d 165, 169- 74 ( 1st

Ci r . 1969) . But t he def endant i s l ooki ng at t he evi dence t hr ough

r ose- col or ed gl asses. We t hi nk i t vi r t ual l y unar guabl e t hat

r at i onal j ur or s coul d f i nd t hat t he def endant and hi s associ at es

went abr oad t o enl i st i n a t er r or i st t r ai ni ng camp.

On t hi s poi nt , t he def endant ' s own st at ement s ar e hi ghl y

pr obat i ve. Hi s coconspi r at or s t est i f i ed t hat t he def endant

per si st ent l y st at ed hi s bel i ef t hat engagi ng i n j i had was "a dut y

upon a Musl i mi f he' s capabl e of per f or mi ng i t , " and t hat t hi s dut y

i ncl uded commi t t i ng vi ol ence. The evi dence f ur t her showed t hat ,

f ol l owi ng Uni t ed St at es i nt er vent i on i n I r aq, t he def endant

concl uded " t hat Amer i ca was at war wi t h I sl am, " and saw Amer i can

"sol di er s as bei ng val i d t ar get s . "

Act i ng upon t hese vi ews, t he def endant and hi s associ at es

as ear l y as 2001 di scussed seeki ng out a t er r or i st t r ai ni ng

camp. Fol l owi ng t hese di scussi ons, t he def endant expr essed

i nt er est i n r ecei vi ng mi l i t ar y- t ype t r ai ni ng i n or der t o

par t i ci pat e i n j i had. The def endant made cl ear t hat he wi shed t o

engage i n j i had i f he "ever had t he chance" and t hat he and hi s

associ at es "woul d make a way t o go. " Toget her , t hey " di scussed t he

di f f er ent ways peopl e coul d get i nt o I r aq, t he di f f er ent t r ai ni ng

camps. "

I n t hese conver sat i ons, t he def endant voi ced hi s desi r e

t o f i ght agai nst t he Uni t ed St at es mi l i t ar y f or ces i n I r aq. He and

- 12-



13/81

hi s associ at es went "i n dept h on det ai l s" r egar di ng t he l ogi st i cs

of r eachi ng such a t er r or i st t r ai ni ng camp.

Coconspi r at or t est i mony shi ned a br i ght l i ght on t he

def endant ' s i nt ent . Thi s t est i mony made pel l uci d t hat t he

def endant and hi s comr ades t r avel ed t o Yemen " f or t he pur pose of

f i ndi ng a terr or i st t r ai ni ng camp" and "[ e] vent ual l y

. . . get [ t i ng] i nt o I r aq. " The def endant ' s par t i cul ar i nt er es t i n

I r aq was because i t was "an ar ea t hat was bei ng at t acked. " He t ook

t he posi t i on t hat " t her e was an obl i gat i on f or Musl i ms t o st and up

and f i ght agai nst i nvasi on of I r aq and t he U. S. f or ces i n I r aq. "

The def endant at t empt s t o char act er i ze t hese r emar ks as

mer e pol i t i cal speech. The j ur y, however , was ent i t l ed t o dr aw a

di f f er ent i nf er ence: t hat t he def endant ' s comment s wer e evi dence of

t he f or mat i on and i mpl ement at i on of a scheme t o go abr oad, obt ai n

t r ai ni ng, j oi n wi t h al - Qa' i da, and wage war agai nst Amer i can

sol di er s f i ght i ng i n I r aq.

The t i mi ng of t he t r i p and t he f ur t i veness wi t h whi ch t he

def endant act ed pr ovi de ci r cumst ant i al suppor t f or t hi s concl usi on.

The r ecor d cont ai ns evi dence t hat t he def endant abr upt l y suspended

hi s st udi es i n Massachuset t s dur i ng t he school year and kept hi s

pl ans hi dden f r omhi s par ent s. Pr i or t o hi s depar t ur e, he gave hi s

br ot her a bag of per sonal bel ongi ngs and asked hi s br ot her t o

di spose of t hem. These bel ongi ngs i ncl uded " somet hi ng about how t o

make a bomb. "

- 13-



14/81

We not e t hat t he def endant and hi s associ at es pur chased

r ound- t r i p ai r l i ne t i cket s. I n t he t r avel er s' own wor ds, however ,

t he r et ur n por t i ons wer e f or use "[ i ] f t hi ngs di dn' t wor k out , " as

wel l as t o avoi d r ai si ng t he sor t of suspi ci on of t en associ at ed

wi t h one- way t i cket i ng. And Abuzahr a t est i f i ed at t r i al t hat ,

not wi t hst andi ng t he r et ur n t i cket , he di d not expect t o ret ur n t o

t he Uni t ed St at es because " [ t ] he pur pose of . . . goi ng was t o

basi cal l y f i ght i n a war . "

Fr om t hi s and ot her evi dence, a r at i onal j ur y coul d

concl ude t hat t he def endant di d not i nt end t o r et ur n t o t he Uni t ed

St at es af t er l eavi ng f or Yemen. Thi s i nt ent dovet ai l s wi t h t he

def endant ' s s el f - pr ocl ai med j i hadi agenda and makes t he pur pose of

t he t r i p appar ent .

Ther e was mor e. The evi dence showed t hat t he def endant

and hi s associ at es had a pl an of act i on f or t hei r ar r i val i n Yemen.

Abousamr a had obt ai ned t he name of a cont act t her e "who was goi ng

t o get t hem t o a mi l i t ar y t r ai ni ng camp. " When t he men t r avel ed t o

Yemen, t hey car r i ed a pi ece of paper t hat cont ai ned t he cont act ' s

name.

To be sur e, t he Yemen t r i p di d not bear f r ui t . Once

t her e, t he def endant l ear ned t o hi s evi dent di smay t hat t r ai ni ng

camps no l onger exi st ed i n t he ar ea and " t hat i t was near l y

i mpossi bl e f or anybody t o get any t r ai ni ng" t her e. The cont act i n

Yemen f i zzl ed, t el l i ng t he def endant and Abousamr a t hat " al l t hat

- 14-



15/81

st uf f i s gone ever si nce t he pl anes hi t t he t wi n t ower s. " I t i s

consi st ent wi t h t he gover nment ' s t heor y of t he case, however , t hat

t he def endant , when conf r ont ed wi t h t hi s news, expr essed

di sappoi nt ment t hat he had "l ef t [ hi s] l i f e behi nd" based on f aul t y

i nf or mat i on.

The gover nment ' s case i s st r engt hened by evi dence t hat

t he def endant and hi s associ at es engaged i n a cover up t hat

cont i nued l ong af t er t he def endant ' s r et ur n f r omYemen. The r ecor d

r ef l ect s t hat t he def endant and hi s associ at es r epeat edl y di scussed

how t o al i gn t hei r st or i es and mi sl ead f eder al i nvest i gat or s ( i n

poi nt of f act , t hey f or mul at ed cover st or i es f or t hei r Yemen t r i p

even bef or e t he t r i p began) . To f aci l i t at e t he cover up, t he

def endant and hi s cohor t s at t empt ed t o obscur e t hei r communi cat i ons

by usi ng code wor ds such as " peanut but t er , " " peanut but t er and

j el l y, " or " PB&J " f or j i had and " cul i nar y school " f or t er r or i st

t r ai ni ng. Rel at edl y, t he def endant encour aged an associ at e t o

i nst al l an " encr ypt or " on hi s comput er i n or der t o make i t " much

har der f or [ t he FBI ] t o" moni t or t hei r onl i ne communi cat i ons.

I t i s set t l ed beyond hope of per advent ur e t hat evi dence

of par t i ci pat i on i n a cover up can be pr obat i ve of el ement s of t he

under l yi ng cr i me such as knowl edge and i nt ent . See Uni t ed St at es

v. Davi s, 623 F. 2d 188, 192 ( 1st Ci r . 1980) ( ci t i ng Gr unewal d v.

Uni t ed St at es, 353 U. S. 391, 405 ( 1957) ) . Thi s i s a commonsense

pr oposi t i on, and " cr i mi nal j ur i es are not expect ed t o i gnor e what

- 15-



16/81

i s per f ect l y obvi ous. " Uni t ed St at es v. Echever r i , 982 F. 2d 675,

679 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) .

Ther e i s anot her di mensi on t o t hi s aspect of t he

gover nment ' s case. Al t hough t he t heor y of gui l t t hat we have been

di scussi ng cent er ed on t he cl ust er of act i vi t i es sur r oundi ng t he

Yemen t r i p, i t was bol st er ed by ot her evi dence.

To begi n, t he def endant ' s desi r e t o engage i n j i had di d

not end wi t h t he f ai l ed Yemen t r i p. Ear l y i n 2006, t he def endant

t ol d an associ at e, Al i Aboubakr , about how he had t r avel ed t o Yemen

t o engage i n j i had. The def endant i nvi t ed Aboubakr t o j oi n hi m i f

he el ect ed t o t r avel abr oad f or j i had agai n. He descr i bed " a camp"

t hat t hey coul d at t end i n Yemen, wher e t hey woul d " l i ve wi t h l i ke,

300 ot her br ot her s" who "al l wal k ar ound . . . wi t h camo j acket s

and AK- 47s. " The def endant ur ged Aboubakr , who was t hen a col l ege

st udent , not t o t el l hi s f at her about hi s pl an.

The def endant ' s communi cat i on wi t h hi s " best f r i end, "

Dani el Mal donado, f ur t her evi nced hi s det er mi nat i on t o engage i n

j i had. 4 I n December of 2006, Mal donado t el ephoned t he def endant

f r om Somal i a. Dur i ng t hi s cal l , t he t wo di scussed t he l ogi st i cs

needed f or t he def endant t o j oi n Mal donado i n Somal i a, i ncl udi ng

t r anspor t at i on and t r avel document s. Mal donado sai d t hat he was

"i n a cul i nar y school " and " mak[ i ng] peanut but t er and j el l y. "

4 At t he t i me of t r i al , Mal donado was ser vi ng a t en- yearsent ence pur suant t o hi s gui l t y pl ea f or r ecei vi ng mi l i t ar y- t ypet r ai ni ng f r om an FTO. See 18 U. S. C. 2339D( a) .

- 16-



17/81

Mal donado t est i f i ed t hat t hi s was code l anguage, f ami l i ar t o t he

def endant , denot i ng t hat Mal donado was i n a t er r or i st t r ai ni ng camp

and engaged i n j i had.

Per ci pi ent wi t nesses t est i f i ed t hat t he def endant wat ched

j i hadi vi deos wi t h hi s associ at es f or t he pur pose of " gai n[ i ng]

i nspi r at i on f r om t he[ m] " and "becom[ i ng] l i ke a muj ahi d. " 5 These

vi deos depi ct ed event s such as Mar i nes bei ng ki l l ed by expl osi ves,

sui ci de bombi ngs, and combat scenes gl or i f yi ng t he muj ahi deen. The

def endant was " j ubi l ant " whi l e wat chi ng t hem.

I n a si mi l ar vei n, t he r ecor d i s shot t hr ough wi t h

evi dence of t he def endant ' s r abi d suppor t f or al - Qa' i da, hi s "l ove"

f or Osama bi n Laden, hi s admi r at i on of t he Sept ember 11 hi j acker s,

and hi s convi ct i on t hat t he Sept ember 11 at t acks wer e j ust i f i ed and

a "happy" occasi on.

The def endant compl ai ns t hat some of t hi s evi dence bear s

no di r ect connect i on t o hi s Yemen t r i p. Thi s pl ai nt i s t r ue as f ar

as i t goes but i t does not t ake t he def endant ver y f ar . I t

over l ooks t he abecedar i an pr oposi t i on t hat evi dence of a

def endant ' s gener al mi ndset may be r el evant t o t he i ssue of hi s

i nt ent . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Al l en, 670 F. 3d 12, 14- 16 ( 1st

Ci r . 2012) . The r ecor d her e i s r epl et e wi t h such evi dence.

5 " Muj ahi deen" ( si ngul ar : "muj ahi d") i s def i ned as " Musl i mguer i l l a war r i or s engaged i n a j i had. " The Amer i can Her i t ageDi ct i onar y of t he Engl i sh Language 1153 ( 4t h ed. 2000) . At t r i al ,Aboubakr descr i bed " muj ahi d" as meani ng " somebody who par t akes i nf i ght i ng. "

- 17-



18/81

The evi dence we have summar i zed suf f i ced t o gr ound a

f i ndi ng, beyond a r easonabl e doubt , t hat t he def endant t r avel ed t o

Yemen wi t h t he speci f i c i nt ent of pr ovi di ng mat er i al suppor t t o al -

Qa' i da, knowi ng or i nt endi ng t hat t hi s suppor t woul d be used i n a

conspi r acy t o ki l l per sons abr oad. I t l i kewi se suf f i ced t o gr ound

a f i ndi ng t hat t he def endant at t empt ed t o pr ovi de such mat er i al

suppor t , knowi ng or i nt endi ng t hat i t woul d be used i n a conspi r acy

t o ki l l per sons abr oad. Fi nal l y, i t suf f i ced t o gr ound a f i ndi ng

t hat t he def endant , whi l e i n t he Uni t ed St at es, conspi r ed wi t h

ot her s i n a pl an t o ki l l per sons abr oad. The evi dence was,

t her ef or e, ampl e t o convi ct on t he f our t er r or i sm- r el at ed count s.

B. The Defendant's Rejoinders.

Despi t e t he obvi ous l ogi c of t he gover nment ' s posi t i on

and t he weal t h of evi dence t hat suppor t s i t , t he def endant l abor s

t o under mi ne t he f our t er r or i sm- r el at ed convi ct i ons. Hi s ef f or t s

t ake t wo di f f er ent di r ect i ons one a f r ont al assaul t and t he ot her

an end r un. We addr ess each i n t ur n.

1. Scholarly Pursuits. The def endant ar gues t hat t he

onl y reasonabl e i nt er pr et at i on of hi s Yemen t r i p and t he act i vi t i es

sur r oundi ng i t i s an i nnocent one: he soj our ned t o Yemen sol el y f or

t he pur pose of st udyi ng t her e. He descr i bes hi msel f as a devot ed

schol ar of I sl am and asser t s t hat he vi si t ed Yemen, speci f i cal l y,

because t he pur est f or m of Ar abi c i s spoken t her e. I n suppor t , he

r emi nds us t hat he t our ed a school whi l e i n t he count r y.

- 18-



19/81

Rel at edl y, t he def endant suggest s t hat , r egar dl ess of hi s

associ at es' pur pose and i nt ent , he was f ar mor e moder at e t han t hey.

Thi s moder at i on al l egedl y i ncl uded adher ence t o cer t ai n bel i ef s

ant i t het i c t o al - Qa' i da canon. Among t hese bel i ef s was t he

doct r i ne of " aman, " whi ch t he def endant descr i bes as " a covenant t o

obey t he l aw wi t hi n a count r y t hat per mi t s pr act i ce of t he f ai t h. "

As he woul d have i t , hi s adher ence t o aman woul d pr ohi bi t hi m f r om

t ar get i ng Amer i can t r oops.

We r eadi l y agr ee t hat t he r ecor d cont ai ns some evi dence

suppor t i ng t he def endant ' s al t er nat i ve nar r at i ve. Yet , t hat

evi dence does not ecl i pse t he pl et hor a of pr oof poi nt i ng i n t he

opposi t e di r ect i on. When al l was sai d and done, t he j ur y hear d and

r ej ect ed t he def endant ' s i nnocent expl anat i on of t he event s t hat

occur r ed. I t was pl ai nl y ent i t l ed t o do so. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Ol br es, 61 F. 3d 967, 972- 73 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) .

To gai n a convi ct i on, t he gover nment need not

" el i mi nat [ e] ever y possi bl e t heor y consi st ent wi t h t he def endant ' s

i nnocence. " Uni t ed St at es v. Noah, 130 F. 3d 490, 494 ( 1st Ci r .

1997) . I t i s t he j ur y' s rol e not t hat of t he Cour t of Appeal s

t o choose bet ween conf l i ct i ng hypot heses, especi al l y when such

choi ces depend on t he dr awi ng of i nf er ences and el usi ve concept s

such as mot i ve and i nt ent . See i d. ; Ol br es, 61 F. 3d at 972- 73.

2. The Alternative Theory of Guilt. The def endant ' s

second r ej oi nder r epr esent s an at t empt t o change t he t r aj ect or y of

- 19-



20/81

t he debat e. He poi nt s out t hat t he i ndi ct ment i dent i f i es hi s

t r ansl at i ons as cul pabl e act i vi t y; t hat t he gover nment i nt r oduced

copi ous evi dence i n suppor t of a t heor y of gui l t based on t he

t r ansl at i ons; t hat i t ar gued t hi s t heor y t o t he j ur y; and t hat t he

j ur y r et ur ned a gener al ver di ct . Bui l di ng on t hi s pl at f or m, he

ar gues t hat even i f t he evi dence of t he Yemen t r i p i s suf f i ci ent t o

gr ound hi s t er r or i sm- r el at ed convi ct i ons, t hose convi ct i ons cannot

st and because t hey may have been pr edi cat ed on pr ot ect ed Fi r st

Amendment speech.

I t i s poi nt l ess t o speak i n t he abst r act of a ver di ct

pr edi cat ed on pr ot ect ed conduct . The Cour t of Appeal s i s not a

sor t i ng hat , di vi ni ng whi ch cr i mi nal def endant s ' s t or i es f al l i nt o

const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed and unpr ot ect ed st acks. Cf . J . K.

Rowl i ng, Har r y Pot t er and t he Sor cer er ' s St one 113- 22 ( 1997) .

I nst ead, an appel l at e cour t ' s r ol e i s t o di scer n what , i f any,

er r or s mar r ed t he t r i al bel ow. Thi s i nqui r y r equi r es us t o f ocus

on t he r el evant act or s i n t he t r i al and not t o engage i n an

unt et her ed academi c anal ysi s of t he ver di ct i t sel f .

Per soni f i cat i on has i t s l i mi t s . Ver di ct s , not bei ng

sent i ent , cannot er r on t hei r own; r at her , any er r or s i n a ver di ct

come f r om t he act or s who have cont r i but ed t o i t . For exampl e, a

t r i al j udge can commi t er r or by i nst r uct i ng t he j ur y t hat i t can

convi ct a def endant f or whol l y l egal conduct . See, e. g. , Uni t ed

St at es v. Tobi n, 480 F. 3d 53, 56- 58 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) . By t he same

- 20-



21/81

t oken, j ur or s can er r by r et ur ni ng a gui l t y ver di ct t hat i s

unsuppor t ed by l egal l y suf f i ci ent evi dence. See, e. g. , Uni t ed

St at es v. Val er i o, 48 F. 3d 58, 63- 65 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) .

When i t comes t o t he ar gument t hat t he def endant makes

her e t hat one of t wo possi bl e gr ounds f or t he gener al ver di ct i s

suspect t he cl assi f i cat i on of t he speci f i c er r or makes al l t he

di f f er ence. I f " a mi st ake about t he l aw" under l i es t he ar gument ,

r ever sal may be necessary. Gr i f f i n v. Uni t ed St at es, 502 U. S. 46,

59 ( 1991) ; see Yat es v. Uni t ed St at es, 354 U. S. 298, 312 ( 1957) ;

St r omber g v. Cal i f or ni a, 283 U. S. 359, 367- 68 ( 1931) . Such a

"l egal er r or " occur s, f or i nst ance, when " j ur or s have been l ef t t he

opt i on of r el yi ng upon a l egal l y i nadequat e t heor y" by t he t r i al

cour t ' s char ge. Gr i f f i n, 502 U. S. at 59. I f , however , "a mi st ake

concer ni ng t he wei ght or t he f act ual i mpor t of t he evi dence"

under l i es t he ar gument , t he ver di ct must be uphel d as l ong as t he

evi dence i s adequat e t o suppor t one of t he gover nment ' s al t er nat i ve

t heor i es of gui l t . I d.

Wi t h t hi s shor t pr i mer i n pl ace, we t ur n t o t he

def endant ' s assever at i on t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed l egal

er r or i n char gi ng t he j ur y wi t h r espect t o hi s t r ansl at i ons. At

f i r s t bl ush, t hi s assever at i on i s count er - i nt ui t i ve because t he

cour t bel ow evi nced a keen awar eness of t he Fi r st Amendment i ss ues

i mpl i cat ed her e. Per t i nent l y, t he cour t i nst r uct ed:

Now, t hi s i s i mpor t ant . Per sons whoact i ndependent l y of a f or ei gn t er r or i st

- 21-



22/81

or gani zat i on t o advance i t s goal s orobj ect i ves ar e not consi der ed t o be wor ki ngunder t he or gani zat i on' s di r ect i on or cont r ol .A per son cannot be convi ct ed under t hi sst at ut e when he' s act i ng ent i r el yi ndependent l y of a f or ei gn t er r or i stor gani zat i on. That i s t r ue even i f t he per soni s advanci ng t he or gani zat i on' s goal s orobj ect i ves. Rat her , f or a per son t o be gui l t yunder t hi s count , a per son must be act i ng i ncoor di nat i on wi t h or at t he di r ect i on of adesi gnat ed f or ei gn t er r or i st or gani zat i on,her e, as al l eged i n Count 1, al Qa' i da.

You need not wor r y about t he scope oref f ect of t he guar ant ee of f r ee speechcont ai ned i n t he Fi r st Amendment t o ourConst i t ut i on. Accor di ng t o t he Supr eme Cour t ,t hi s st at ut e al r eady accommodat es t hatguar ant ee by puni shi ng onl y conduct t hat i sdone i n coor di nat i on wi t h or at t he di r ect i onof a f or ei gn t er r or i st organi zat i on. Advocacyt hat i s done i ndependent l y of t he t er r or i stor gani zat i on and not at i t s di r ect i on or i ncoor di nat i on wi t h i t does not vi ol at e t hestatute.

Put anot her way, act i vi t y t hat i spr oven t o be t he f ur ni shi ng of mat er i alsuppor t or r esour ces t o a desi gnat ed f or ei gnt er r or i st or gani zat i on under t he st at ut e i snot act i vi t y t hat i s pr ot ect ed by t he Fi r stAmendment ; on t he ot her hand, as I ' ve sai d,i ndependent advocacy on behal f of t heor gani zat i on, not done at i t s di r ect i on or i ncoor di nat i on wi t h i t , i s not a vi ol at i on of t he st at ut e.

The def endant assi gns er r or t o t hese i nst r uct i ons i n

t hr ee r espect s. He says that t hey ( i ) f ai l t o def i ne t he t er m

"coor di nat i on"; ( i i ) i ncor r ect l y di r ect t he j ur y not t o consi der

t he Fi r st Amendment ; and ( i i i ) shoul d have been r epl aced by a set

- 22-



23/81


24/81

i t s goal s or obj ect i ves shal l not be consi der ed t o be wor ki ng under

t he [ FTO] ' s di r ect i on and cont r ol . " 18 U. S. C. 2339B( h) . The

cont ext made cl ear t hat t he gover nment ' s " t r ansl at i ons- as- mat er i al -

suppor t " t heor y was pr emi sed on t he concept t hat t he t r ansl at i ons

compr i sed a "servi ce, " whi ch i s a f or m of mat er i al suppor t wi t hi n

t he pur vi ew of t he st at ut e. See i d. 2339A( b) ( 1) , 2339B( g) ( 4) .

The HLP Cour t expl ai ned t hat " ser vi ce, " as mat er i al suppor t ,

" r ef er s t o concer t ed act i vi t y, not i ndependent advocacy. " 130 S.

Ct . at 2721. The i nst r uct i ons gi ven t o t he j ur y embr aced t hi s

const r uct .

I n sum, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons capt ur ed t he

essence of t he cont r ol l i ng deci si on i n HLP, wher e t he Cour t

det er mi ned t hat ot her wi se- pr ot ect ed speech r i ses t o t he l evel of

cr i mi nal mat er i al suppor t onl y i f i t i s " i n coor di nat i on wi t h

f or ei gn gr oups t hat t he speaker knows t o be t er r or i st

or gani zat i ons. " I d. at 2723. I f speech f i t s wi t hi n t hi s t axonomy,

i t i s not pr ot ect ed. See i d. at 2722- 26. Thi s means t hat

" advocacy per f or med i n coor di nat i on wi t h, or at t he di r ect i on of , "

an FTO i s not shi el ded by t he Fi r st Amendment . I d. at 2722. The

di st r i c t cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons t r acked t he cont our s of t hi s l egal

f r amewor k. The cour t appr opr i at el y t r eat ed t he quest i on of whet her

enough coor di nat i on exi st ed t o cr i mi nal i ze t he def endant ' s

t r ansl at i ons as f act bound and l ef t t hat quest i on t o t he j ur y. See,

- 24-



25/81

e. g. , J ones v. Uni t ed St at es, 526 U. S. 227, 247 n. 8 ( 1999) . We

di scer n no er r or .

The second assi gnment of i nst r uct i onal er r or i s no mor e

r obust . The def endant cont ends t hat t he cour t bel ow er r oneousl y

f or ecl osed hi s ar gument t hat hi s act i vi t i es wer e const i t ut i onal l y

pr ot ect ed by t el l i ng t he j ur y: " You need not wor r y about t he scope

or ef f ect of t he guar ant ee of f r ee speech cont ai ned i n t he Fi r st

Amendment t o our Const i t ut i on. "

Thi s cont ent i on i s f ut i l e. The ver y next sent ence of t he

i nst r uct i ons makes t he di st r i ct cour t ' s pur pose pel l uci d:

" Accor di ng t o t he Supr eme Cour t , t hi s s t at ut e al r eady accommodat es

t hat guar ant ee by puni shi ng onl y conduct t hat i s done i n

coor di nat i on wi t h or at t he di r ect i on of a f or ei gn t er r or i st

or gani zat i on. " The i nst r uct i ons, r ead i n cont ext , di d not t el l t he

j ur y t o bl i nd i t sel f t o t he pr ot ect i ons of t he Fi r st Amendment .

I nst ead, t hey appr opr i at el y advi sed t he j ur y t hat t he mat er i al

suppor t st at ut e, as wel l as t he i nst r uct i ons t he di st r i ct cour t

gave r egar di ng t hat st at ut e, al r eady account ed f or t hose

pr ot ect i ons.

I n al l event s , i t i s a bedr ock pr i nci pl e t hat " [ t ] he r ol e

of t he j ur y i n a f eder al cr i mi nal case i s t o deci de onl y t he i ssues

of f act . " Ber r a v. Uni t ed St at es, 351 U. S. 131, 134 ( 1956) . I n

l i ne wi t h t hi s pr i nci pl e, t he di s t r i c t cour t pr oper l y bar r ed t he

j ur y f r omembar ki ng on an i ndependent eval uat i on of Fi r st Amendment

- 25-



26/81

pr ot ect i ons. See Uni t ed St at es v. Vi ct or i a- Peguer o, 920 F. 2d 77,

86 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Fi ncher , 538 F. 3d

868, 872 ( 8t h Ci r . 2008) .

The def endant ' s t hi r d assi gnment of i nst r uct i onal er r or

cal umni zes t he di s t r i c t cour t f or f ai l i ng t o gi ve hi s pr of f er ed

i nst r uct i ons on t he i nt er act i on of t he mat er i al suppor t st at ut es

and t he pr ophyl axi s af f or ded by t he Fi r st Amendment . We wi l l

r ever se a t r i al cour t ' s r ef usal t o gi ve a pr of f er ed j ur y

i nst r uct i on onl y i f t he pr of f er ed i nst r uct i on i s subst ant i vel y

cor r ect , not ot her wi se cover ed i n subst ance i n t he cour t ' s char ge,

and of suf f i ci ent i mpor t t hat i t s omi ssi on ser i ousl y af f ect s t he

def endant ' s abi l i t y t o pr esent hi s def ense. See Chi ar adi o, 684

F. 3d at 281; Uni t ed St at es v. Pr i gmor e, 243 F. 3d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r .

2001) ; Uni t ed St at es v. McGi l l , 953 F. 2d 10, 13 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) .

I n t he case at hand, t he def endant ' s pr of f er ed

i nst r uct i ons wer e not subst ant i vel y cor r ect but , r at her , cont ai ned

l egal l y f l awed pr oposi t i ons. Ther e i s not hi ng t o be gai ned by

ci t i ng book and ver se. A si ngl e i l l ust r at i on suf f i ces .

The pr of f er ed i nst r uct i on st at ed: " t he per son [ pr ovi di ng

t he al l eged suppor t ] must have a di r ect connect i on t o t he gr oup

[ FTO] and be wor ki ng di r ect l y wi t h t he gr oup [ FTO] f or i t t o be a

vi ol at i on of t he st at ut e. " Cont r ar y t o t he t enor of t hi s

st at ement , a di r ect l i nk i s nei t her r equi r ed by st at ut e nor

mandat ed by HLP.

- 26-



27/81

We add, mor eover , t hat t o t he ext ent t hat t he pr of f er ed

i nst r uct i ons wer e sound, t hey wer e cover ed i n subst ance by t he

char ge act ual l y gi ven. Her e, t oo, a si ngl e exampl e makes t he

poi nt .

The pr of f er ed i nst r uct i ons st at ed: " [ m] er e associ at i on

wi t h t er r or i s t s or a t er r or i s t or gani zat i on i s not suf f i ci ent t o

meet t he el ement of ' i n coor di nat i on wi t h. ' " What t he di st r i ct

cour t t ol d t he j ur y i s per f ect l y consi st ent wi t h t hi s l anguage.

That ends t he mat t er : a def endant has a r i ght t o an i nst r uct i on on

hi s t heor y of t he case, but he has no r i ght t o i nsi st t hat t he

t r i al cour t par r ot hi s pr ef er r ed wor di ng. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es

v. DeSt ef ano, 59 F. 3d 1, 2- 3 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ; McGi l l , 953 F. 2d at

12.

The bot t om l i ne i s t hat t he def endant ' s assaul t on t he

di s t r i c t cour t ' s j ur y i nst r uct i ons i s wi t hout mer i t . And, havi ng

el i mi nat ed t he def endant ' s cl ai ms of l egal er r or , we ar e l ef t onl y

wi t h hi s cl ai m t hat t he j ur y' s f i ndi ng of "coor di nat i on" l acked

suf f i ci ent suppor t i ng evi dence.

As not ed above, t hat i nqui r y i s f or ecl osed by Gr i f f i n.

We al r eady have det er mi ned t hat t he cl ust er of act i vi t i es

sur r oundi ng t he def endant ' s Yemen t r i p suppl i ed an i ndependent l y

suf f i ci ent evi dent i ar y pr edi cat e f or t he convi ct i ons on t he

t er r or i sm- r el at ed count s. The def endant ' s t r ansl at i on- r el at ed

act i vi t i es wer e t ender ed t o t he j ur y onl y as an al t er nat i ve basi s

- 27-



28/81

f or t hose convi ct i ons. Even i f t hat pr oof i s f actual l y

i nsuf f i ci ent , Gr i f f i n di ct at es t hat we af f i r m based on t he

gover nment ' s Yemen t heor y.

I t makes no di f f er ence t hat t he absence of f act s showi ng

coor di nat i on wi t h al - Qa' i da mi ght have r esul t ed i n const i t ut i onal l y

pr ot ect ed conduct . The di vi di ng l i ne t hat t he Supr eme Cour t dr ew

i n Gr i f f i n was based on t he di st i nct r ol es of j udge and j ur y i n our

syst em of j ust i ce, not t he pr esence vel non of const i t ut i onal

i ssues. We ent r ust t r i al j udges wi t h t he gr ave r esponsi bi l i t y of

gi vi ng j ur i es a pr oper vi ew of t he l aw, and when t hey f ai l t o do

so, r ever sal may be war r ant ed because "t her e i s no r eason t o t hi nk

t hat [ j ur or s ' ] own i nt el l i gence and exper t i se wi l l save t hem f r om

t hat er r or . " Gr i f f i n, 502 U. S. at 59.

On t he ot her hand, j ur or s ar e endowed wi t h exper t i se i n

f act f i ndi ng. See i d. That presumed exper t i se i s not vi t i at ed even

when per f or mi ng t he f act f i ndi ng t ask r equi r es t hem t o separ at e

const i t ut i onal l y pr ot ect ed conduct f r om i l l egal conduct . See,

e. g. , N. Y. Ti mes Co. v. Sul l i van, 376 U. S. 254, 279- 82 ( 1964) .

Thus, Gr i f f i n wi sel y t eaches t hat t her e i s no need f or cour t s t o

save j ur or s f r omt hemsel ves " when t hey have been l ef t t he opt i on of

r el yi ng upon a f act ual l y i nadequat e t heor y, si nce j ur or s ar e wel l

equi pped t o anal yze t he evi dence. " 502 U. S. at 59 ( emphasi s i n

or i gi nal ) .

- 28-



29/81

That br i ngs down t he f i nal cur t ai n. We have f ound t he

def endant ' s cl ai ms of l egal er r or wi t h r espect t o hi s t r ansl at i on

act i vi t i es want i ng, and we have no occasi on t o exami ne t he f act ual

suf f i c i ency of t hose act i vi t i es as a basi s f or hi s t er r or i sm-

r el at ed convi ct i ons. Even i f t he gover nment ' s t r ansl at i on- as-

mat er i al - suppor t t heor y wer e f act ual l y i nsuf f i ci ent , we woul d not

r ever se: t he def endant ' s convi ct i ons on t he af f ect ed count s are

i ndependent l y suppor t ed by t he mass of evi dence sur r oundi ng t he

Yemen t r i p and, under Gr i f f i n, we need go no f ur t her . 7

C. Odds and Ends.

The def endant i nvi t es us t o over t ur n hi s convi ct i on on

some or al l of t he t er r or i sm- r el at ed count s f or a var i et y of

addi t i onal r easons. Wi t hout except i on t hese r easons ar e mer i t l ess.

We di spose of t hem summar i l y.

1. Variance. The def endant per cei ves a f at al var i ance

bet ween t he conspi r aci es char ged i n count s 1, 2, and 4 and what he

vi sual i zes as a hodge- podge of ot her conspi r aci es capt ur ed by t he

7 Ci t i ng st r ong ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hat t he j ur y r est edt hese convi ct i ons on t he Yemen t r i p f or exampl e, t he convi ct i onon count 4 was necessar i l y pr edi cat ed on t he Yemen t r i p ( not t het r ansl at i ons) , maki ng i t hi ghl y l i kel y t hat t he convi ct i ons oncount s 1, 2, and 3 shar ed t he same pr ovenance t he gover nmentar gues st r enuousl y t hat any i nst r uct i onal er r or woul d have been

har ml ess . See Hedgpet h v. Pul i do, 555 U. S. 57, 58 ( 2008) ( percur i am) ( hol di ng t hat const i t ut i onal l y or l egal l y def ect i ve j ur yi nst r uct i on becomes r ever si bl e er r or onl y i f i t "had subst ant i aland i nj ur i ous ef f ect or i nf l uence i n det er mi ni ng t he j ur y' sver di ct " ( quot i ng Br echt v. Abr ahamson, 507 U. S. 619, 623 ( 1993) ) ) .I nasmuch as we di scer n no i nst r uct i onal er r or , we do not r each t hi sar gument .

- 29-



30/81

pr oof at t r i al . The accept ed r ul e i s t hat when t he gover nment ' s

case at t r i al var i es f r omt he cr i me l i mned i n t he char gi ng document

and t hat var i ance i s bot h mat er i al and pr ej udi ci al , an ensui ng

convi ct i on must be set asi de. See Uni t ed St at es v. Boyl an, 898

F. 2d 230, 246- 48 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) .

We need not t ar r y. As we have expl ai ned, quest i ons about

t he number of conspi r aci es t hat ar e i n pl ay and about t hei r

st r uct ur e t ypi cal l y "pr esent mat t er s of f act sui t abl e f or

r esol ut i on by a j ur y. " Sepul veda, 15 F. 3d at 1190. Hence,

var i ance cl ai ms ar e nor mal l y r evi ewed on appeal as mat t er s of

evi dent i ar y suf f i ci ency. See i d.

Si l houet t ed agai nst t hi s backdr op, what we have sai d

about t he def endant ' s f ai l ed suf f i ci ency ar gument , see supr a Par t

I I ( A) , not onl y shows t hat t he gover nment pr oved t he conspi r aci es

t hat i t char ged but al so r ef ut es t he def endant ' s var i ance cl ai m.

Based upon a car ef ul per scr ut at i on of t he r ecor d, we ar e conf i dent

t hat no mat er i al and pr ej udi ci al var i ance exi st s i n t hi s case. The

gover nment i nt r oduced suf f i ci ent evi dence t o pr ove each of t he

conspi r aci es wi t h whi ch t he def endant was char ged.

We add, mor eover , t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons

f ocused t he j ur y wi t h l aser - l i ke i nt ensi t y on t hese par t i cul ar

conspi r aci es. And even t hough t he def endant l abor ed t o spl i nt er

t he gover nment ' s pr oof i nt o a myr i ad of separ at e conspi r aci es, t he

- 30-



31/81

j ur y suppor t abl y r ej ect ed t hi s ef f or t at deconst r uct i on. That ends

t he mat t er .

2. Legal Impossibility. The def endant ar gues t hat

count s 2 and 3 must f ai l because t hey depend on a l egal

i mpossi bi l i t y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Di xon, 449 F. 3d 194, 202 n. 2

( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( expl ai ni ng t hat "l egal i mpossi bi l i t y exi st s when

a def endant set s out t o achi eve an obj ect i ve whi ch, even i f

achi eved as envi si oned, wi l l not const i t ut e a cr i me") .

Speci f i cal l y, he mai nt ai ns t hat he coul d not have had an i nt ent t o

pr ovi de mat er i al suppor t knowi ng or i nt endi ng i t s use t o vi ol at e

ei t her sect i on 956 or sect i on 2332. I n t er ms of sect i on 956, he

envi si ons a l egal i mpossi bi l i t y because "[ p] ut at i ve r eci pi ent s of

t he ' per sonnel ' coul d not ' use' t hat suppor t , as sect i on 2339A

cont empl at es, t o commi t a pr edi cat e cr i me r equi r i ng conspi r acy

wi t hi n t he Uni t ed St at es, because by def i ni t i on, t hose r eci pi ent s

wer e cont empl at ed t o be abr oad. " He f ur t her ar gues t hat l egal

i mpossi bi l i t y r esul t s because t he gover nment ' s t heor y of t he case

f el l shor t of maki ng out a conspi r acy t o commi t " an act t hat woul d

const i t ut e t he of f ense of mur der . " 18 U. S. C. 956( a) ( 1) .

Wi t h r espect t o sect i on 2332, t he def endant cont ends t hat

l egal i mpossi bi l i t y f or ecl oses convi ct i on because t he gover nment

di d not make out " a cont empl at ed conspi r acy or at t empt occur r i ng

out si de t he Uni t ed St at es t o make use of [ t he def endant ' s] or

Abousamr a' s per son t o ki l l some nat i onal of t he Uni t ed St at es. "

- 31-



32/81

These convol ut ed t heor i es ar e di f f i cul t t o f ol l ow. We

need not wend our way, st ep by st ep, t hr ough t he i nt r i cat e

l abyr i nt h t hat t he def endant const r uct s. I t suf f i ces to say t hat ,

i n t he l as t anal ysi s , hi s t heor i es r ai se quest i ons of f actual ,

r at her than l egal , i mpossi bi l i t y. As such, t hei r r esol ut i on

depends on t he sor t of f unct i ons t hat t he cr i mi nal l aw commi t s t o

j ur i es, namel y, how one l ooks at t he f act s of t he case and what

i nf er ences one chooses t o dr aw.

At any r at e, dr essi ng up an ar gument i n di f f er ent r ai ment

r ar el y i mpr oves i t s pr ospect s. St r i pped of r het or i cal f l our i shes,

t he def endant ' s l egal i mpossi bi l i t y t heor i es ar e not hi ng mor e t han

cr eat i ve r ef or mul at i ons of di scr et e aspect s of hi s pr evi ousl y

r ej ect ed suf f i ci ency cl ai m. What mat t er s i s t hat t he evi dence i n

t hi s case was adequat e t o pr ove al l of t he el ement s of t he

t er r or i sm- r el at ed count s. See supr a Par t I I ( A) . The def endant ' s

l egal i mpossi bi l i t y t heor i es t her ef or e f ai l .

3. Vagueness. The def endant makes a cur sor y ar gument

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s "const r uct i on" of t he mat er i al suppor t

l aws was unconst i t ut i onal l y vague. To t he ext ent t hat t hi s

ar gument i s pr eser ved, i t i s f or ecl osed by HLP, 130 S. Ct . at 2718-

22. Consequent l y, we r ej ect i t out of hand.

4. The Certification Requirement. The def endant obj ect s

t hat hi s convi ct i ons on count s 2 and 3 ar e i nval i d because of t he

gover nment ' s f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h t he cer t i f i cat i on r equi r ement

- 32-



33/81

adumbr at ed i n 18 U. S. C. 2332( d) . Thi s r equi r ement r eads: " No

pr osecut i on f or any of f ense descr i bed i n t hi s sect i on shal l be

under t aken . . . except on wr i t t en cer t i f i cat i on . . . t hat , i n t he

j udgment of t he cer t i f yi ng of f i ci al , such of f ense was i nt ended t o

coer ce, i nt i mi dat e, or r et al i at e agai nst a gover nment or a ci vi l i an

popul at i on. " I d.

The gover nment concedes t hat no such cer t i f i cat i on was

obt ai ned. I n t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, however , t he absence

of a cer t i f i cat i on af f or ds t he def endant no sanct uar y.

To begi n, t he def endant di d not r ai se t hi s obj ect i on i n

t he di s t r i c t cour t . Our revi ew, t her ef or e, i s onl y f or pl ai n

er r or . See Uni t ed St at es v. Duar t e, 246 F. 3d 56, 60 ( 1st Ci r .

2001) . To make out pl ai n er r or , t he def endant must show " ( 1) t hat

an er r or occur r ed ( 2) whi ch was cl ear or obvi ous and whi ch not onl y

( 3) af f ect ed t he def endant ' s subst ant i al r i ght s, but al so ( 4)

ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c reput at i on of

j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. " I d.

Ther e i s no pl ai n er r or her e. I n t he f i r st pl ace, i t i s

doubt f ul t hat t he cer t i f i cat i on r equi r ement appl i es t o t hi s case.

The def endant was not pr osecut ed f or an of f ense " descr i bed i n"

sect i on 2332 but , r at her , f or an of f ense descr i bed i n sect i on 2339A

( whi ch r ef er ences sect i on 2332 as a speci f i c- i nt ent el ement ) .

Gi ven t hi s uncer t ai nt y, any er r or t hat may have t r anspi r ed woul d

not be " cl ear or obvi ous. "

- 33-



34/81

At any r at e, t he def endant cannot vaul t t he t hi r d hur dl e

er ect ed by t he pl ai n er r or st andar d: on t hi s r ecor d, he cannot show

t hat hi s subst ant i al r i ght s wer e adver sel y af f ect ed by t he absence

of a cer t i f i cat i on. The def endant ' s convi ct i ons under sect i on

2339A wer e pr emi sed on knowl edge and i nt ent t hat hi s mat er i al

suppor t woul d be used f or vi ol at i ons of ei t her sect i on 2332 or

sect i on 956. On a separ at e count count 4 t he j ur y f ound t hat

t he def endant vi ol at ed sect i on 956. Thus, hi s sect i on 2339A

convi ct i on was suppor t ed by an i nt ent t o vi ol at e sect i on 956. Thi s

makes i t hi ghl y unl i kel y t hat t he i ncl usi on of t he r ef er ence t o

sect i on 2332 had any subst ant i al ef f ect . See Tur ner v. Uni t ed

St at es, 396 U. S. 398, 420 ( 1970) ( expl ai ni ng " t hat when a j ur y

r et ur ns a gui l t y ver di ct on an i ndi ct ment char gi ng sever al act s i n

t he conj unct i ve, . . . t he ver di ct st ands i f t he evi dence i s

suf f i ci ent wi t h r espect t o any one of t he act s char ged" ) .

5. Count 3. The def endant mount s a si ngul ar at t ack on

count 3, whi ch char ged hi m wi t h at t empt ed vi ol at i on of sect i on

2339A; t hat i s, at t empt i ng t o pr ovi de mat er i al suppor t knowi ng or

i nt endi ng i t s use i n a conspi r acy t o ki l l per sons abr oad. The

def endant suggest s t hat t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat he

engaged i n t he subst ant i al st ep necessar y t o under gi r d an at t empt

convi ct i on. Thi s suggest i on i s pl ai nl y unavai l i ng.

We agr ee wi t h t he def endant t hat a convi ct i on f or at t empt

necessi t at es pr oof t hat t he def endant t ook at l east one subst ant i al

- 34-



35/81

st ep t owar d t he act ual commi ss i on of t he char ged cr i me. See, e. g. ,

Uni t ed St at es v. Pi r es, 642 F. 3d 1, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ; Gobbi , 471

F. 3d at 309. Her e, however , t he Yemen t r i p const i t ut ed a ver y

subst ant i al st ep t owar d t he at t empt ed commi ss i on of t he cr i me. The

def endant suspended hi s st udi es, i nst r uct ed hi s br ot her t o dest r oy

a bag of hi s poss essi ons, and f l ew t o Yemen ar med wi t h t he name of

a possi bl e al - Qa' i da l i ai son. The j ur y was f ul l y ent i t l ed t o f i nd

t hat t hese act i ons sat i sf i ed t he "subst ant i al st ep" r equi r ement .

I n an ef f or t t o ef f ace t hi s r easoni ng, t he def endant

posi t s t hat t he Yemen t r i p coul d not have const i t ut ed a subst ant i al

st ep t owar d t he commi ss i on of t he cr i me because t her e was no al -

Qa' i da pr esence i n Yemen i n Febr uar y of 2004. Not wi t hst andi ng

t hese i mpor t uni ngs, we need not deci de whet her or when al - Qa' i da

pul l ed up st akes and qui t Yemen. Even i f we assume ar guendo t hat

al - Qa' i da r et r eat ed bef or e t he def endant ' s t r i p, t he exi st ence of

a subst ant i al st ep woul d not be cal l ed i nt o quest i on. Such a

depar t ur e woul d, at most , have cr eat ed a f act ual i mpossi bi l i t y; and

as we pr evi ousl y have expl ai ned, "f act ual i mpossi bi l i t y i s not a

def ense t o . . . l i abi l i t y . . . f or i nchoat e of f enses such as

conspi r acy or at t empt . " Di xon, 449 F. 3d at 202.

III. THE FALSE STATEMENT COUNTS

The def endant does not cont est t he suf f i ci ency of t he

evi dence under pi nni ng hi s convi ct i ons on count s 5 ( maki ng f al se

st at ement s as par t of a conspi r acy t o commi t an of f ense agai nst t he

- 35-



36/81

Uni t ed St at es) and 7 ( maki ng f al se st at ement s anent t he pur pose and

ul t i mat e dest i nat i on of t he Yemen t r i p) . He does, however ,

i nt er pose a suf f i ci ency chal l enge t o hi s convi ct i on on count 6. We

t ur n next t o t hi s chal l enge.

Count 6 char ges a vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1001( a) ( 2) ,

whi ch cr i mi nal i zes "knowi ngl y and wi l l f ul l y . . . mak[ i ng] any

mat er i al l y f al se, f i c t i t i ous, or f r audul ent s t at ement or

r epr esent at i on" t o f eder al of f i ci al s. The st at ement s on whi ch t hi s

count depends per t ai n t o t he wher eabout s and act i vi t i es of t he

def endant ' s f r i end and compat r i ot , Mal donado. These ut t er ances

wer e made when FBI agent s quest i oned t he def endant i n December of

2006. I n r esponse t o di r ect quer i es, t he def endant t ol d t he agent s

t hat he had l ast hear d f r om Mal donado t wo weeks ear l i er and t hat

Mal donado was l i vi ng i n Egypt , wor ki ng as a websi t e st ewar d. These

st at ement s wer e unquest i onabl y f al se: t he def endant had spoken t o

Mal donado wi t hi n t he week and knew t hat Mal donado was i n Somal i a

and t r ai ni ng f or j i had.

St i l l , even pr oof of knowi ng and wi l l f ul f al s i t y, wi t hout

mor e, i s not enough t o sust ai n a convi ct i on under sect i on

1001( a) ( 2) . Tar get ed st at ement s must not onl y be f al se but al so

mat er i al l y so. See Uni t ed St at es v. Sebaggal a, 256 F. 3d 59, 64- 65

( 1st Ci r . 2001) .

The def endant sei zes on t hi s addi t i onal r equi r ement . He

poi nt s out t hat when t he agent s quest i oned hi m, t hey knew f ul l wel l

- 36-



37/81

wher e Mal donado was and what he was doi ng. They al so knew t hat he

had spoken wi t h Mal donado by t el ephone wi t hi n a mat t er of days.

Bui l di ng on t hi s f oundat i on, t he def endant ar gues t hat

t he agent s wer e aski ng hi mquest i ons t o whi ch t hey al r eady knew t he

answer s f or t he sol e pur pose of cat chi ng hi m i n a l i e. Thus, hi s

ar gument r uns, hi s f al se st at ement s cannot be mat er i al because t he

agent s knew t hat hi s s t at ement s wer e f al se ab i ni t i o and,

t her ef or e, wer e not mi sl ed by t hem. I nasmuch as t hi s ar gument

chal l enges t he suf f i ci ency of t he gover nment ' s evi dence, i t

engender s de novo r evi ew. See Gobbi , 471 F. 3d at 308.

The def endant i s f i shi ng i n an empt y st r eam. To sat i sf y

t he mat er i al i t y r equi r ement of sect i on 1001( a) ( 2) , a st at ement must

have " a nat ur al t endency t o i nf l uence, or [ be] capabl e of

i nf l uenci ng, a gover nment al f unct i on. " Sebaggal a, 256 F. 3d at 65.

But t he st at ement need not act ual l y have i nf l uenced t he

gover nment al f unct i on. I t i s enough t hat t he " st at ement coul d have

pr ovoked gover nment al act i on. " I d. ; see Uni t ed St at es v. Edgar , 82

F. 3d 499, 510 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( expl ai ni ng t hat " t he st andar d i s not

whet her t her e was act ual i nf l uence, but whet her [ t he st at ement ]

woul d have a t endency t o i nf l uence" ) . Thus, t he pr oper i nqui r y i s

not whet her t he t endency t o i nf l uence bear s upon a par t i cul ar

aspect of t he act ual i nvest i gat i on but , r at her , whet her i t woul d

bear upon t he i nvest i gat i on i n t he abst r act or i n t he nor mal

- 37-



38/81

cour se. See Uni t ed St at es v. McBane, 433 F. 3d 344, 350- 51 ( 3d Ci r .

2005) ; Edgar , 82 F. 3d at 510.

Under t hi s f or mul at i on, t he knowl edge of t he i nt er r ogat or

i s i r r el evant t o t he mat er i al i t y of t he def endant ' s f al se

st at ement s. See Uni t ed St at es v. Land, 877 F. 2d 17, 20 ( 8t h Ci r .

1989) . Wi t h t hi s i n mi nd, cour t s have r ej ect ed var i at i ons of t he

met aphysi cal pr oposi t i on advanced by t he def endant wi t h a

r egul ar i t y bor der i ng on t he monot onous. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es

v. Lupt on, 620 F. 3d 790, 806- 07 ( 7t h Ci r . 2010) ; McBane, 433 F. 3d

at 350- 52; Edgar , 82 F. 3d at 510; Land, 877 F. 2d at 20; see al so

Br ogan v. Uni t ed St at es, 522 U. S. 398, 399- 400, 402 ( 1998) ( f i ndi ng

def endant ' s f al se r esponse t o be mat er i al wher e agent s knew cor r ect

answer at t i me of quest i oni ng, but not el abor at i ng on t hi s poi nt ) .

I n t he case at hand, i t i s cl ear beyond hope of

cont r adi ct i on t hat t he def endant ' s f al se st at ement s about Mal donado

had a nat ur al t endency t o i nf l uence an FBI i nvest i gat i on i nt o

t er r or i sm. Af t er al l , Mal donado was hi p- deep i n t er r or i sm- r el at ed

ant i cs. Dur i ng t he cr i t i cal i nt er vi ew, t he def endant was pl ai nl y

at t empt i ng t o obscur e bot h Mal donado' s par t i ci pat i on i n t er r or i st

endeavor s and t he t el ephone cal l i n whi ch he and Mal donado had

di scussed j i had and t er r or i st t r ai ni ng. The mi si nf or mat i on

i mpar t ed by t he def endant t hus had a nat ur al pr opensi t y t o

i nf l uence an FBI i nves t i gat i on i nt o t er r or i s t act i vi t y.

- 38-



39/81

To ci nch mat t er s, t he def endant ' s mendaci t y was

under t aken f or t he pur pose of mi sdi r ect i ng t he ongoi ng FBI

i nvest i gat i on ( or so t he j ur y coul d have f ound) . Thi s i s an

i mpor t ant dat um: wher e a def endant ' s s t at ement s ar e i nt ended t o

mi sdi r ect gover nment i nvest i gat or s, t hey may sat i sf y t he

mat er i al i t y r equi r ement of sect i on 1001 even i f t hey st and no

chance of accompl i shi ng t hei r obj ect i ve. See Lupt on, 620 F. 3d at

806- 07. Thi s pr i nci pl e makes emi nent l y good sense: i t woul d st and

r eason on i t s head t o excuse a def endant ' s del i ber at e pr evar i cat i on

mer el y because hi s i nt er r ogat or s wer e a st ep ahead of hi m.

To say mor e on t hi s poi nt woul d be super er ogat or y. The

def endant ' s chal l enge t o t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence on count

6 i s a l osi ng pr oposi t i on.

IV. THE EVIDENTIARY RULINGS

The next l eg of our j our ney t akes us t hr ough a ser i es of

hot l y cont est ed evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs. Al t hough t hese cl ai ms of

er r or ar e somewhat i nt er r el at ed, we subdi vi de t hem i nt o f i ve

segment s.

A. Coconspirator Statements .

The chal l enged evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs concer n f our set s of

out - of - cour t st at ement s at t r i but ed t o coconspi r at or s and admi t t ed

at t r i al . The f i r st t wo set s of decl ar at i ons wer e made by cl osel y

r el at ed coconspi r at or s and wer e ut t er ed ei t her bef or e or af t er t he

Yemen t r i p. The r emai ni ng t wo set s compr i se r emar ks of mor e r emot e

- 39-



40/81

per sonages, whomt he gover nment al so al l eges wer e coconspi r at or s.

Al t hough t he def endant unl eashes a t or r ent of ar gument s agai nst t he

admi ssi on of t hese st at ement s, we di scer n no r ever si bl e er r or .

The pr i nci pl es t hat gover n t he admi ssi on of coconspi r at or

st at ement s ar e ol d hat . Out - of - cour t st at ement s of f er ed t o pr ove

t he t r ut h of t he mat t er asser t ed ar e gener al l y r egar ded as hear say

and, t hus, i nadmi ssi bl e. See Fed. R. Evi d. 801( c) , 802. But t her e

ar e except i ons. Per t i nent l y f or pr esent pur poses, when such a

st at ement i s of f er ed agai nst a par t y and i s shown t o have been

" made by t he par t y' s coconspi r at or dur i ng and i n f ur t her ance of t he

conspi r acy, " i t i s "not hear say" and t her ef or e admi ssi bl e. Fed. R.

Evi d. 801( d) ( 2) ( E) .

I f a def endant chal l enges t he admi ssi bi l i t y of such a

st at ement when i t i s of f er ed agai nst hi m, t he t r i al cour t may

pr ovi si onal l y admi t t he evi dence and def er i t s f i nal r ul i ng unt i l

t he cl ose of al l t he evi dence. See Uni t ed St at es v. Per ez- Rui z,

353 F. 3d 1, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . Thi s pr ocedur e i mposes a t wo- f ol d

obl i gat i on upon a pr ot est i ng def endant : he must obj ect when t he

evi dence i s f i r st of f er ed and agai n at t he cl ose of al l t he

evi dence. See i d.

I n eval uat i ng a t r i al cour t ' s r ef usal t o sust ai n such a

cl ose- of - evi dence obj ect i on, we ask whet her t he r ecor d adequat el y

evi nces " t hat a conspi r acy embr aci ng bot h t he decl ar ant and t he

def endant exi st ed, and t hat t he decl ar ant ut t er ed t he st at ement

- 40-



41/81

dur i ng and i n f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Pi per , 298 F. 3d 47, 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k

omi t t ed) . The par t y seeki ng t he benef i t of t he hear say except i on

( her e, t he gover nment ) must car r y t he devoi r of per suasi on on t hi s

i nqui r y and est abl i sh t he necessar y el ement s by a pr eponder ance of

t he evi dence. I d. "I f t hese condi t i ons ar e met , and i f t her e i s

cor r obor at i on i n t he f or mof ext r i nsi c evi dence of t he decl ar ant ' s

i nvol vement i n t he conspi r acy, t hen t he hear say bar r i er i s avoi ded

and t he st at ement may be admi t t ed. " Uni t ed St at es v. Br adshaw, 281

F. 3d 278, 283 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) .

1. Pre-Yemen Statements. Wi t h t hi s f r amewor k i n pl ace,

we t ur n f i r st t o cer t ai n st at ement s t hat pr eceded t he Yemen t r i p.

The Yemen t r i p di d not t ake pl ace unt i l Febr uar y of 2004.

Abousamr a had sought t o l ocat e a t er r or i st t r ai ni ng camp i n 2002.

At t hat t i me, Paki st an capt ur ed hi s f ancy. He sol i ci t ed assi st ance

f r omHassan Masood, a conf eder at e who had par t i cul ar i zed knowl edge

about t hat count r y.

Ar med wi t h Masood' s i nf or mat i on, Abousamr a t r avel ed t o

Paki st an t wi ce t hat year . Upon r et ur ni ng, he compl ai ned t o Masood

about t he f ut i l i t y of hi s quest . Abousamr a nonet hel ess not ed t hat

t hi s cl oud had a si l ver l i ni ng: i n hi s t r avel s, he had come acr oss

a sympat het i c cont act who had ur ged hi m t o "do what ever [ he coul d]

back i n Amer i ca. "

- 41-



42/81

That advi ce pr esaged conver sat i ons t hat t ook pl ace i n

2003 among Abousamr a, Abuzahr a, and t he def endant . Fuel ed by anger

over t he i nt er vent i on by t he Uni t ed St at es i n I r aq, t he t hr ee men

agr eed i n pr i nci pl e t o par t i ci pat e i n j i had agai nst t he Uni t ed

St at es. They di scussed possi bl e ways t o i mpl ement t hi s consensus,

i ncl udi ng t he assassi nat i on of pol i t i cal l eader s , at t acks on

mi l i t ar y bases, and i ncur si ons at shoppi ng mal l s.

Ul t i mat el y, t he t r i o abandoned any pl ans f or mi schi ef -

maki ng i n t he Uni t ed St at es. At t hat poi nt , Abousamr a conver sed

wi t h J ason Pi ppi n, a per son whomhe had met t hr ough onl i ne Sal af i -

J i hadi f or ums. Abousamr a sought Pi ppi n' s counsel about a poss i bl e

Yemen t r i p.

At t r i al , t he gover nment used sever al of t he st at ement s

t hat had been made dur i ng t he f or egoi ng di scuss i ons. The def endant

ar gues t hat not hi ng Abousamr a sai d at t hose t i mes can sat i sf y t he

st r i c tur es of Rul e 801( d) ( 2) ( E) . He i nsi s t s t hat al l t he

st at ement s pr eceded t he f or mat i on of any pl an t o go t o Yemen and,

a f or t i or i , di d not t ake pl ace dur i ng t he conspi r acy. He adds

t hat , even when vi ewed i n t he most si ni st er l i ght , t he st at ement s

r el at e t o separ at e conspi r aci es t hat he never j oi ned. Because t he

def endant chal l enges t hese st at ement s f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal ,

our r evi ew i s f or pl ai n er r or . See Duar t e, 246 F. 3d at 60.

We f i nd no er r or , pl ai n or ot her wi se. To begi n, we

al r eady have r ej ect ed t he def endant ' s at omi zi ng concept i on t hat

- 42-



43/81

each di st i nct t er r or i sm- or i ent ed t hought must be t r eat ed as i t s own

separ at e conspi r acy. See supr a Par t I I ( C) ( 1) . Our rej ect i on i s

consi st ent wi t h t he t r ui sm t hat a conspi r acy may "shi f t i t s

pr i or i t i es f r om t i me t o t i me wi t hout sacr i f i ci ng i t s essent i al

i dent i t y. " Sepul veda, 15 F. 3d at 1191. That t he conspi r acy

shi f t ed i t s f ocus f r om Paki st an t o domest i c at t acks and t hen t o

Yemen di d not r ob i t of i t s ess ent i al pur pose: wagi ng j i had agai nst

t he Uni t ed St at es. The means may have changed f r om t i me t o t i me,

but t he end r emai ned t he same.

Once t hi s essent i al pur pose i s under st ood, i t becomes

evi dent t hat none of t he st at ement s at i ssue pr edat e t he f or mat i on

of t he r el evant conspi r acy. Al l of t he st at ement s f ol l ow t he

di scuss i ons bet ween t he def endant and hi s associ at es i n 2001 about

t er r or i st t r ai ni ng camps. What i s mor e, t he def endant agr eed t o

par t i ci pat e i n j i had agai nst t he Uni t ed St at es bef or e Abousamr a' s

expl or at i on of domest i c at t acks and t he t r i o' s i nvest i gat i on i nt o

t he pl ausi bi l i t y of a Yemen t r i p.

To be sur e, Abousamr a' s f l i r t at i on wi t h Paki st an and hi s

conver sat i ons wi t h Masood occur r ed ear l i er . But even t hough t hese

r emar ks came bef or ehand, t he l aw i s s et t l ed t hat a "st at ement made

by a coconspi r at or , i f i n f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy, i s

. . . admi ssi bl e agai nst t he def endant even i f made pr i or t o t he

def endant ' s i nvol vement i n t he conspi r acy. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Masse, 816 F. 2d 805, 811 ( 1st Ci r . 1987) . J udge Al dr i ch

- 43-



44/81

gr aphi cal l y descr i bed t he under l yi ng r at i onal e: "[ A] conspi r acy i s

l i ke a t r ai n. When a par t y knowi ngl y st eps aboar d, he i s par t of

t he cr ew, and assumes conspi r at or ' s r esponsi bi l i t y f or t he exi st i ng

f r ei ght . . . . " Uni t ed St at es v. Bai nes, 812 F. 2d 41, 42 ( 1st

Ci r . 1987) .

2. Post-Yemen Statements. Af t er Abuzahr a bai l ed out of

t he Yemen t r i p, he t ol d Masood hi s r easons f or doi ng so. For hi s

par t , Abousamr a r ecount ed hi s t r avel s i n Yemen and beyond t o a

number of wi t nesses. These post - Yemen or al hi st or i es wer e admi t t ed

at t r i al . The def endant mai nt ai ns t hat by t he t i me t hese

st at ement s wer e made, t he conspi r acy had ended as t o t he

decl ar ant s: he says t hat Abuzahr a abandoned t he conspi r acy by

l eavi ng Yemen ear l y and t hat , by t he t i me Abousamr a spoke, t her e

was no one l ef t wi t h whom he coul d have been conspi r i ng. Because

t hese f act - l aden cl ai ms of er r or wer e pr eser ved bel ow, we r evi ew

t hem f or cl ear er r or . See Sepul veda, 15 F. 3d at 1180.

Wi t h r espect t o Abousamr a, t he def endant ' s at t empt t o

l i mi t t he conspi r acy t o Yemen al one cast s t he net t oo nar r owl y. As

we al r eady have expl ai ned, t he def endant cont i nued t o seek

oppor t uni t i es t o engage i n j i had wel l af t er hi s r et ur n f r omYemen.

See supr a Par t I I ( A) . Fur t her mor e, t he def endant ' s cl ai m i gnor es

ent i r el y t he char ged conspi r acy t o pr ovi de f al se i nf or mat i on t o t he

gover nment a conspi r acy t hat cont i nued l ong af t er t he Yemen t r i p.

- 44-



45/81

The def endant ' s pl ai nt t hat Abuzahr a abandoned t he

conspi r acy i s equal l y ast heni c. "[ I ] n or der t o wi t hdr aw f r om a

conspi r acy, a conspi r at or must act af f i r mat i vel y ei t her t o def eat

or di savow t he pur poses of t he conspi r acy, " such as by conf essi ng

t o t he aut hor i t i es or i nf or mi ng hi s coconspi r at or s t hat he has

f or saken t he conspi r acy and i t s goal s. Pi per , 298 F. 3d at 53

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Abuzahr a t ook no such

af f i r mat i ve st eps but , r at her , mer el y eschewed cont act wi t h

Abousamr a and t he def endant upon hi s r et ur n f r om Yemen. Avoi di ng

cont act wi t h one' s coconspi r at or s, wi t hout mor e, i s not i n any way,

shape, or f or m t ant amount t o abandoni ng t he conspi r acy.

Consequent l y, t he r ecor d i n t hi s case does not suppor t t he not i on

t hat Abuzahr a abandoned t he conspi r acy bef or e r ecount i ng hi s

t r avel s . See i d. ( expl ai ni ng t hat " [ m] er e cessat i on of act i vi t y i n

f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy does not const i t ut e wi t hdr awal f r om

a conspi r acy" ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) .

Ther e i s no need t o t ar r y. We concl ude, wi t hout ser i ous

quest i on, t hat t he cour t bel ow di d not cl ear l y er r i n admi t t i ng t he

post - Yemen st at ement s.

3. At-Tibyan Statements. We next consi der t he

st at ement s of mor e r emot e f i gur es al l eged t o be among t he

def endant ' s coconspi r at or s. Once agai n, we spl i t t he i nqui r y i nt o

t wo par t s. We st ar t wi t h t he def endant ' s chal l enge t o

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	janelle-lawrence
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

First Circuit upholds Mehanna decision

Documents