Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-800-335-6202

U.S. v. Yousef

Document Cited authorities 239 Cited in 1057 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Decision Date04 April 2003
Docket NumberDocket No. 98-1041L.,Docket No. 98-1355.,Docket No. 98-1197.,Docket No. 99-1554.,Docket No. 99-1544.
Citation327 F.3d 56
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ramzi Ahmed YOUSEF, Eyad Ismoil, also known as Eyad Ismail, and Abdul Hakim Murad, also known as Saeed Ahmed, Defendants-Appellants, Mohammed A. Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima, also known as Mahmoud Abu Halima, Bilal Alkaisi, also known as Bilal Elqisi, Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj, also know as Khurram Khan, Abdul Rahman Yasin, also know as Aboud, and Wali Khan Amin Shah, also known as Grabi Ibrahim Hahsen, Defendants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

327 F.3d 56

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ramzi Ahmed YOUSEF, Eyad Ismoil, also known as Eyad Ismail, and Abdul Hakim Murad, also known as Saeed Ahmed, Defendants-Appellants, Mohammed A. Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima, also known as Mahmoud Abu Halima, Bilal Alkaisi, also known as Bilal Elqisi, Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj, also know as Khurram Khan, Abdul Rahman Yasin, also know as Aboud, and Wali Khan Amin Shah, also known as Grabi Ibrahim Hahsen, Defendants.

Docket No. 98-1041L.

Docket No. 98-1197.

Docket No. 98-1355.

Docket No. 99-1544.

Docket No. 99-1554.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: May 3, 2002.

Decided: April 4, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

David N. Kelley and Michael J. Garcia, Assistant United States Attorneys (Mary Jo White, United States Attorney, on the brief, David Raskin, Adam B. Siegel, Jennifer G. Rodgers, James J. Benjamin, Jr., Baruch Weiss, Jamie L. Kogan, Christine H. Chung, Ira M. Feinberg, Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel), United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee United States of America.

Bernard V. Kleinman and Steven Z. Legon, White Plains, NY, for Defendant-Appellant Ramzi Ahmed Yousef.

Louis R. Aidala (Joan Palermo, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant Eyad Ismoil.

Jerry L. Tritz (Amy J. Porter, on the brief), Law Office of Jerry L. Tritz, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant Abdul Hakim Murad.

Before: WALKER, Chief Judge, WINTER and CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

JOHN M. WALKER, Jr., Chief Judge, RALPH K. WINTER and JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges. 

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                INTRODUCTION ........................................................................77
                GENERAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................78
                        I.  World Trade Center Bombing ..............................................78
                       II.  Airline Bombing .........................................................79
                AIRLINE BOMBING CASE ................................................................80
                  BACKGROUND ........................................................................80
                        I.  Preparation for Airline Bombing Conspiracy ..............................80
                       II.  Discovery of Airline Bombing Plot .......................................81
                      III.  Arrests of Shah, Yousef, and Murad ......................................82
                  DISCUSSION ........................................................................85
                        I.  Assertion of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Over Defendants Yousef
                              and Murad .............................................................85
                            A.  Jurisdiction to Prosecute Defendants' Extraterritorial Conduct
                                  Under Federal Law .................................................86
                                1.  Applicable Law ..................................................86
                                2.  Counts Thirteen and Fourteen ....................................86
                                3.  Count Twelve ....................................................87
                                4.  Count Nineteen ..................................................88
                            B.  Exercise of United States Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and
                                  Customary International Law .......................................90
                
                                1.  Bases of Jurisdiction over the Counts Charged ...................92
                                    a.  Relationship between Domestic and International Law
                                          in Yousef's Prosecution ...................................92
                                    b.  Treaty-Based Jurisdiction: The Hague and Montreal
                                          Conventions ...............................................94
                                2.  Jurisdiction over Counts Twelve through Eighteen ................96
                                3.  Jurisdiction over Count Nineteen ................................97
                                    a.  The District Court's Holding and Yousef's Challenges
                                          on Appeal .................................................97
                                          i.  The District Court's Opinion ..........................98
                                         ii.  The Use of Authority in Determining Customary
                                                International Law ...................................99
                                        iii.  The Universality Principle Provides for Jurisdiction
                                                over Only a Limited Set of Acts Violating
                                                the Law of Nations .................................103
                                    b.  Jurisdiction Is Proper Under United States Laws
                                          Giving Effect to Its Obligations Under the Montreal
                                          Convention ...............................................108
                                    c.  In Any Event, Jurisdiction Over Count Nineteen Is
                                          Proper under the Protective Principle of Customary
                                          International Law ........................................110
                            C.  Due Process Claims .................................................111
                                1.  Due Process Nexus ..............................................111
                                2.  Due Process in Conduct of Trial ................................112
                            D.  Venue in Southern District of New York .............................114
                            E.  Doctrine of Specialty ..............................................115
                       II.  Conviction of Yousef Under 18 U.S.C. § 2332 .......................116
                            A.  Prosecutorial Discretion Under Section 2332(d) .....................116
                            B.  Failure to Charge Jury on Intent to Retaliate ......................117
                      III.  District Court Failure to Sua Sponte Voir Dire the Jury Mid-Trial
                              Regarding the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church .....................118
                       IV.  Liberation Army Letter .................................................120
                            A.  Admission of Liberation Army Letter ................................121
                            B.  Failure to Redact Liberation Army Letter ...........................122
                        V.  District Court Denial of Murad's Motion to Suppress His Post-Arrest
                              Statement ............................................................122
                            A.  District Court Decision ............................................123
                            B.  Standard of Review .................................................124
                            C.  Murad's Alleged Request for a Lawyer ...............................124
                            D.  Voluntariness of Confession ........................................125
                                1.  FBI Coercion ...................................................125
                                2.  Hegarty's Testimony ............................................126
                                3.  Murad's Allegations of Torture by Philippine Officials .........126
                                4.  United States Government's Lack of Knowledge Regarding
                                      Philippine Mistreatment ......................................127
                            E.  Harmless Error .....................................................128
                       VI.  Murad's Sixth Amendment Right to Present a Defense .....................128
                            A.  Applicable Law .....................................................128
                            B.  Reports by Amnesty International and the United States
                                  Department of State Regarding Abusive Treatment by
                                  Philippine Police ................................................128
                            C.  Discovery from the Philippines .....................................129
                            D.  Jury Charge on Voluntariness .......................................130
                      VII.  "Bully" Charge on Circumstantial Evidence of Intent ....................131
                     VIII.  Sufficiency of the Evidence on Yousef's Attempt Convictions ............133
                WORLD TRADE CENTER CASE ............................................................135
                  BACKGROUND .......................................................................135
                
                        I.  Indictment and Apprehension of Yousef and Ismoil .......................135
                       II.  The World Trade Center Bombing Trial ...................................135
                  DISCUSSION .......................................................................137
                        I.  Yousef's Pre-Trial Motions .............................................137
                            A.  Motion to Dismiss the Indictment ...................................137
                            B.  Motion to Suppress .................................................139
                                1.  Attachment of Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel Upon
                                      Indictment for the World Trade Center Bombing ................140
                                2.  Invocation of Right to Counsel .................................141
                                3.  Sixth Amendment Rights Based on Assignment of Asylum
                                      Counsel ......................................................142
                                4.  Purported Due Process Requirement of Appointment of
                                      Counsel ......................................................143
                                5.  Voluntariness of Yousef's Post-Arrest Statements ...............144
                       II.  Ismoil's Motion to Suppress His Statement to Jordanian Authorities .....144
                      III.  The Daubert Hearing
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
780 cases
  • U.S. v. Black, No. 05 CR 727.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 21 Diciembre 2006
    ...is one of Congressional intent); Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285, 69 S.Ct. 575, 93 L.Ed. 680 (1949) (same); United States v. Yousef 327 F.3d 56, 86 (2d Cir.2003) ("As long as Congress has indicated its intent, to reach such conduct, a United States court is bound to follow the Con......
  • United States v. Karake
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 17 Agosto 2006
    ...the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the statement was voluntary." 455 F.2d at 213 (citing Bram). In United States v. Yousef 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir.2003), the Second Circuit stated that "the law is settled that statements taken by foreign police in the absence of Miranda warn......
  • United States v. Ahmed, 12-CR-661 (SLT) (S-2)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 24 Marzo 2015
    ...States' authority to enforce its laws beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States. See, e.g., United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 86 (2d Cir. 2003) ("Ramzi Yousef"). It requires "that a territorial nexus underlie the extraterritorial application of a criminal statute," in order......
  • United States v. Skinner
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 10 Marzo 2021
    ...arbitrary or fundamentally unfair.’ " United States v. Bello Murillo , 826 F.3d 152, 156 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Yousef , 327 F.3d 56, 111 (2d Cir. 2003)). To apply a federal criminal statute extraterritorially, due process requires this sufficient nexus between the defend......
    • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • New International Focus On Prosecution Of White-Collar Crime
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 2 Enero 2013
    ...and U.S. law enforcement, in which a determination will be made if the interrogation was a "joint venture." See United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 146 (2d Cir. Searches and Wiretaps Similarly, although U.S. citizens living abroad still have a constitutional Fourth Amendment right against......
20 books & journal articles
  • The Charming Betsy Canon, American Legal Doctrine, and the Global Rule of Law.
    • United States
    • 1 Octubre 2020
    ...[hereinafter 1971 Montreal Convention]. (55.) See United States v. Prado, 933 F.3d 121, 137 n.8 (2d Cir. 2019); United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 90 (2d Cir. 2003) (same interpretation of "found in the United States" in relation to parallel "present in" language in 1971 Montreal Convent......
  • Allan Erbsen, Impersonal Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 60-1, 2010
    • Invalid date
    ...from a foreign country if the basis for the prosecution differs from the basis for the extradition. See, e.g., United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 115 (2d Cir. 2003) (discussing "doctrine of specialty"). 156 See supra notes 20-26. 157 My conclusion that some cases are easier or harder tha......
  • Trials
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • 1 Agosto 2022
    ...918 F.2d 244, 248 (1st Cir. 1990) (Compulsory Process waived when defendant proceeded to trial without material witness); U.S. v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 113 (2d Cir. 2003) (Compulsory Process waived when defendant “made no effort to take the [witness’s] testimony in the Philippines” to later ......
  • Chapter I Overview of Evidence
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Institute American Bankruptcy Institute's Quick Evidence Handbook
    • Invalid date
    ...(6th Cir. 2008).[57] Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596.[58] See, e.g., United States v. Ford, 481 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2007); United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003); Ueland v. United States, 291 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2002); In re Air Crash at Little Rock, 291 F.3d 503 (8th Cir. 2002); Alfred ......
    • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT