U.S. v. Yousef, Docket No. 98-1041L.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Citation | 327 F.3d 56 |
| Decision Date | 04 April 2003 |
| Parties | 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 Number | Docket No. 98-1041L.,Docket No. 98-1355.,Docket No. 98-1197.,Docket No. 99-1554.,Docket No. 99-1544. |
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.
Page 57
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 58
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 59
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 60
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 61
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 62
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 63
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 64
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 65
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 66
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 67
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 68
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 69
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 70
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 71
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 72
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 73
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 74
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 75
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
Page 76
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
Page 77
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 ....................................................147
IV. Yousef's Motion to Sever ...............................................149
V. The Admission of Ismoil's Redacted Statement ...........................152
VI. Yousef's Motion for a Change of Venue ..................................155
VII. Exclusion of Evidence of Government's Inconsistent Theories ............155
VIII. Admission of Government's Fingerprint Evidence and Telephone
Call Charts ..........................................................157
IX. Jury Instructions Concerning Ismoil's Knowledge ........................158
X. Jury Instruction on "Aiding and Abetting" ..............................160
XI. Failure to Dismiss the Alternate Jurors ................................160
XII. Cumulative Violation of Right to Fair Trial ............................161
SENTENCING ISSUES ..................................................................161
I. Ex Post Facto Claim ....................................................162
II. Length of Sentences ....................................................162
III. Fines and Restitution...To continue reading
Request your trial
734 practice notes
-
Chime v. Peak Sec. Plus, Inc., No. 13–cv–470 (WFK)(VVP).
...As courts should not, and do not, consider contentions raised for the first time in a reply brief, see, e.g., United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 115 (2d Cir.2003) (citing cases); Thomas v. Roach, 165 F.3d 137, 146 (2d Cir.1999), the arguments that are neither discussed nor referenced in ......
-
U.S. v. Hasan, Criminal No. 2:10cr56.
...against a critical state interest (the “protective principle”). Restatement, supra, § 402(1)(c), (3); accord United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 110 (2d Cir.2003) (applying the “protective principle” of jurisdiction to a defendant who planned to bomb United States commercial aircraft abro......
-
U.S. v. Abu Ali, No. CRIM.A. 05-53GBL.
...obtained by foreign police in the absence of a Miranda warning are admissible, if made voluntarily. See, e.g., United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 145 (2d Cir.2003). However, there are at least two exceptions to this general rule of admissibility. First, under the "joint venture" doctrine......
-
U.S. v. Hasan, Criminal No. 2:10cr56.
...admissibility in U.S. courts of statements taken by agents of foreign governments without Miranda warnings. See United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 145–46 (2d Cir.2003) (explaining that “the law is settled that statements taken by foreign police in the absence of Miranda warnings are admi......
Request a trial to view additional results
749 cases
-
U.S. v. Hasan, Criminal No. 2:10cr56.
...admissibility in U.S. courts of statements taken by agents of foreign governments without Miranda warnings. See United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 145–46 (2d Cir.2003) (explaining that “the law is settled that statements taken by foreign police in the absence of Miranda warnings are admi......
-
Almog v. Arab Bank, Plc, 04-CV-5564(NG)(VVP).
...under the universality principle, in part due to the failure of States to achieve anything like consensus on the definition of terrorism." 327 F.3d 56, 97 (2d Cir.2003) (per Arab Bank's reliance on Yousef is misplaced. First, the court in Yousef was reviewing whether the district court had ......
-
Goldberg v. Ubs Ag, CV-08-375 (CPS).
...Congress has the authority to `enforce its laws beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States.'" United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 86 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991)). However, Congressional intent t......
-
Farag v. U.S., 05-CV-3919(FB)(SMG).
...grounds for prosecuting potential terrorist plots against United States-flag aircraft." Gov't Br. at 25 (citing United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 86-88 (2d 21. Plaintiffs' complaint styles their constitutional claims against Smith as actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not Bivens. However, ......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
The Charming Betsy Canon, American Legal Doctrine, and the Global Rule of Law.
...[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......
-
Curtailing the Deportation of Undocumented Parents in the Best Interest of the Child
...(1987). 229. McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional De Marineros De Honduras, 372 U.S. 10 (1963). 230. Id. at 21. 231. United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003). 232. Id. at 92. 233. Bean, supra note 225, at 1801–02. 234. See The Charming Betsy Canon, Separation of Powers, and Customary I......