U.S. v. Salameh
| Decision Date | 04 August 1998 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 94-1312,s. 94-1312 |
| Citation | 152 F.3d 88,1998 WL 440473 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Mohammed A. SALAMEH, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmoud Abouhalima, also known as Mahmoud Abu Halima, Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj, also known as Khurram Khan, Defendants-Appellants, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, Bilal Alkaisi, also known as Bilal Elqisi, Abdul Rahman Yasin, also known as Aboud, Defendants. to 94-1315. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
J. Gilmore Childers, Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York City (Mary Jo White, United States Attorney, Lev L. Dassin, Michael J. Garcia, Dietrich L. Snell, Alexandra Rebay, Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.
Frank Handelman, New York City, for defendant-appellant Mohammed A. Salameh.
Jeremy Schneider, Rothman, Schneider, Soloway & Stern, New York City, for defendant-appellant Nidal Ayyad.
Miranda Fritz, Fritz & Miller, New York City, for defendant-appellant Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj.
Lawrence Mark Stern, New York City, for defendant-appellant Mahmoud Abouhalima.
Before: MESKILL, McLAUGHLIN and CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.
Following a lengthy jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Duffy, J.), defendants were convicted of various crimes related to the bombing of the World Trade Center Complex in New York City. Defendants now appeal, asserting a congeries of arguments. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court but remand for re-sentencing and decline to exercise jurisdiction over certain post-trial motions pending before the district court.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background ............................................................... 107
I. Suppression Motions ............................................. 108
A. Motions to Suppress Materials Seized From Ajaj ............ 108
(1) Ajaj's Motion ........................................ 108
(2) Abouhalima's Motion .................................. 110
(a) Rule 403 ........................................ 110
(b) First Amendment ................................. 111
(3) Ayyad's Motion ....................................... 112
B. Motion to Suppress Contents of the Storage Shed ........... 112
(1) Probablese ........................................... 112
(2) Franks Hearing ....................................... 113
(3) Good Faith Reliance .................................. 114
II. Procedural Motions .............................................. 114
A. Abouhalima--Severance ..................................... 114
(1) Ajaj's Holy War Materials ............................ 115
(2) Salameh's Summation .................................. 116
B. Abouhalima--Involuntariness of Statement .................. 117
C. Ayyad--Failure to Grant Funds for Experts ................. 118
D. Ajaj--Eastern District Plea Agreement ..................... 118
III. Jury Selection .................................................. 120
IV. Evidentiary Rulings ............................................. 122
A. Admission of Evidence Regarding Bombing Victims ........... 122
(1) Probative Value ...................................... 122
(2) Danger of Unfair Prejudice ........................... 123
B. Admission of Evidence Regarding Nosair .................... 123
(1) Photographs of Salameh and Nosair .................... 123
(2) Admission of Abouhalima's Contacts with Nosair ....... 124
C. Admission of Identification ............................... 124
(1) Use of Photo Array ................................... 125
(2) Subsequent In"Court Identifications .................. 126
D. Examination of Storage Facility Employee .................. 127
(1) Leading Questions .................................... 127
(2) Comments Regarding Meeting ........................... 128
E. Testimony of the Government's Fingerprint Expert .......... 128
F. Admission of DNA Evidence ................................. 129
G. Confrontation Clause ...................................... 130
(1) Moneeb ............................................... 131
(2) Butler ............................................... 131
(3) Moharam .............................................. 132
H. Requested Read-back of Testimony .......................... 132
V. Jury Arguments .................................................. 133
A. Prosecutorial Misconduct as to Abouhalima ................. 134
(1) Government Misrepresentations ........................ 134
(a) Witnesses ....................................... 134
(b) Affiliation With Yousef ......................... 134
(c) Inexplicable Nervousness ........................ 134
(2) Jury Fear ............................................ 134
(3) Government Vouching .................................. 135
(4) Burden of Proof ...................................... 136
B. Prosecutorial Misconduct as to Ajaj ....................... 137
(1) Government's Improper Arguments ...................... 137
(2) Attacks on the Defense ............................... 138
(3) Change in Summation Theory ........................... 139
VI. Jury Charge ..................................................... 140
A. The Bully Hypothetical .................................... 140
B. Abouhalima--Terrorist Materials ........................... 144
C. Elements of the Charged Conspiracy ........................ 145
D. Ajaj's Objection to the Jury Charge ....................... 147
(1) Essential Nature of Plan ............................. 147
(2) Inclusion of the Pinkerton Charge .................... 148
(3) Failure to Charge on Withdrawal Sua Sponte ........... 150
VII. Sufficiency of the Evidence ..................................... 151
A. Standard of Review ........................................ 151
B. Ajaj ...................................................... 151
C. Abouhalima ................................................ 155
VIII. Unfair Trial--Due Process ....................................... 157
IX. Post"Trial Motions .............................................. 158
A. New Trial (Ajaj) .......................................... 158
B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ......................... 160
X. Sentencing ...................................................... 161
Conclusion ................................ 161
On April 24, 1992, Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj departed from his home in Houston, Texas, and traveled to the Middle East to attend a terrorist training camp, known as "Camp Khaldan," on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. There he learned how to construct homemade explosive devices. During his time in Pakistan, Ajaj met Ramzi Ahmed Yousef. Together the two plotted to use their newly acquired skills to bomb targets in the United States.
In the fall of 1992, after formulating a terrorist plan, Ajaj and Yousef traveled to New York under assumed names. Ajaj carried with him a "terrorist kit" that he and Yousef had assembled in Pakistan. The kit included, among other things, handwritten notes Ajaj had taken while attending explosives courses, manuals containing formulae and instructions for manufacturing bombs, materials describing how to carry-off a successful terrorist operation, videotapes advocating terrorist action against the United States, and fraudulent identification documents.
On September 1, 1992, Ajaj and Yousef, using false names and passports, arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. At customs, INS inspectors discovered that Ajaj's passport had been altered and, consequently, they searched his belongings. Upon discovery of the "terrorist kit," Ajaj became belligerent. The INS seized Ajaj's "terrorist kit" and placed him under arrest. Ajaj was later indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for passport fraud. He pled guilty and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
During Ajaj's encounter with the INS inspectors, he denied that he was traveling with Yousef, who proceeded unmolested to the secondary inspection area where he presented an Iraqi passport and claimed political asylum. Yousef was arrested for entering the United States without a visa. Eventually he was released on his own recognizance.
Once in New York, Yousef assembled a team of trusted criminal associates, including Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmoud Abouhalima and Abdul Rahman Yasin. Together, the conspirators implemented the bombing plot that Ajaj and Yousef had hatched overseas. Ayyad and Salameh opened a joint bank account into which they deposited funds to finance the bombing plot. Some of that money was later used by Salameh to rent a storage shed in Jersey City, New Jersey, where the conspirators stored chemicals for making explosives. Yousef also drew on that account to pay for materials described in Ajaj's manuals as ingredients for bomb making.
The first target of the conspirators' plot was the World Trade Center. Ayyad used
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Barber, No. 455605 (CT 5/20/2005)
...U.S. 926, 121 S.Ct. 1369, 149 L.Ed.2d 297 (2001); United States v. Wiseman, 172 F.3d 1196, 1211 (10th Cir. 1999); United States v. Salemeh, 152 F.3d 88, 115 (2d Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1028, 119 S.Ct. 1273, 143 L.Ed.2d 368 (1999). "[A]ppellate decisions emphasize that an abuse of......
-
United States v. Carpenter
...38 (2d Cir.1977) ). It must also be established that the defendant "agree[d] on the essential nature of the plan." United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 151 (2d Cir.1998) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Gleason, 616 F.2d 2, 16 (2d Cir.1979) ) (internal quotation marks om......
-
U.S. v. Ferguson
..."is particularly strong where ... the defendants are alleged to have participated in a common plan or scheme." United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 115 (2d Cir.1998). Although district courts have discretion to grant a severance under rule 14(a), they should only do so "if there is a seri......
-
United States v. Known
...that the agreement contemplated barring districts other than the particular district entering into the agreement." United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 853 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)) (internal quotations omitted); United States ......
-
Other Evidence Rules
...to impeach , was excluded as the silence was ambiguous and there was no indication of proper probative value. United States v. Salameh , 152 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 1998). Old Chief is limited to defendant’s status and defendant’s willingness to stipulate does not deprive the government of its ch......
-
Other evidence rules
...to impeach , was excluded as the silence was ambiguous and there was no indication of proper probative value. United States v. Salameh , 152 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 1998). Old Chief is limited to defendant’s status and defendant’s willingness to stipulate does not deprive the government of its ch......
-
Grand jury practice
...for the government to use a grand jury subpoena for the sole or dominant purpose of preparing for trial. [ United States v. Salameh , 152 F.3d 88, 109 (2d Cir. 1998).] 12-27 Grand Jury Practice Form 12-1 However, subpoenas are presumed to have a legitimate purpose, and the defense has the b......
-
Other evidence rules
...to impeach , was excluded as the silence was ambiguous and there was no indication of proper probative value. United States v. Salameh , 152 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 1998). Old Chief is limited to defendant’s status and defendant’s willingness to stipulate does not deprive the government of its ch......