United States v. Ahmed, No. 98-1041 L.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | John M. Walker, Ralph K. Winter, José A. Cabranes |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, <I>Appellee,</I> v. RAMZI AHMED YOUSEF, EYAD ISMOIL, also known as EYAD ISMAIL, and ABDUL HAKIM MURAD, also known as SAEED AHMED, <I>Defendants-Appellants,</I> 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, <I>Defendants.</I> |
| Decision Date | 18 June 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-1544.,No. 99-1554.,No. 98-1355.,No. 98-1197.,No. 98-1041 L. |
Page 1
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.
Appeal by Ramzi Yousef, Eyad Ismoil, and Abdul Hakim Murad from judgments of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kevin Thomas Duffy, Judge) on April 13, June 2, and June 15, 1998, respectively. Judge Duffy presided
Page 2
over two separate jury trials. In the first trial, Yousef, Murad, and another defendant were tried on charges relating to a conspiracy to bomb twelve United States commercial airliners in Southeast Asia. In the second trial, Yousef and Ismoil were tried for their involvement in the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City. Yousef, Ismoil, and Murad now appeal from their convictions, raising numerous questions of domestic and international law. Yousef and Ismoil also appeal from the District Court's denial of several of their post-judgment motions.
Apart from a modification of Ismoil's judgment with respect to the requirements of restitution, the judgments of conviction are affirmed in all respects.
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, White Plains, NY, and STEVEN Z. LEGON, New York, 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, CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
Page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 7
GENERAL BACKGROUND ............................................................. 8
I. World Trade Center Bombing ........................................... 8
II. Airline Bombing ...................................................... 10
AIRLINE BOMBING CASE ........................................................... 13
BACKGROUND ................................................................... 13
I. Preparation for Airline Bombing Conspiracy ........................... 13
II. Discovery of Airline Bombing Plot .................................... 14
III. Arrests of Shah, Yousef, and Murad ................................... 16
DISCUSSION ................................................................... 22
I. Assertion of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
Over Defendants Yousef and Murad ..................................... 22
A. Jurisdiction to Prosecute Defendants'
Extraterritorial Conduct Under Federal Law ........................ 23
1. Applicable Law ................................................. 23
2. Counts Thirteen and Fourteen ................................... 24
3. Count Twelve ................................................... 26
4. Count Nineteen ................................................. 27
B. Exercise of United States Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction and Customary International Law ...................... 32
1. Bases of Jurisdiction over the Counts Charged .................. 34
a. Relationship between Domestic and
International Law in Yousef's Prosecution ................... 34
b. Treaty-Based Jurisdiction: The
Hague and Montreal Conventions .............................. 38
2. Jurisdiction over Counts Twelve through Eighteen ............... 42
3. Jurisdiction over Count Nineteen ............................... 43
a. The District Court's Holding and
Yousef's Challenges on Appeal ............................... 43
i. The District Court's Opinion ........................... 45
ii. The Use of Authority in Determining
Customary International Law ............................ 47
iii. The Universality Principle Provides
for Jurisdiction over Only a
Limited Set of Acts Violating
Page 4
the Law of Nations ..................................... 53
b. Jurisdiction Is Proper Under United States
Laws Giving Effect to Its Obligations
Under the Montreal Convention ............................... 60
c. In Any Event, Jurisdiction Over Count
Nineteen Is Proper under the Protective
Principle of Customary International Law .................... 64
C. Due Process Claims ................................................ 66
1. Due Process Nexus .............................................. 66
2. Due Process in Conduct of Trial ................................ 67
D. Venue in Southern District of New York ............................ 72
E. Doctrine of Specialty ............................................. 73
II. Conviction of Yousef Under 18 U.S.C. § 2332 .......................... 74
A. Prosecutorial Discretion Under Section 2332(d) .................... 75
B. Failure to Charge Jury on Intent to Retaliate ..................... 77
III. District Court Failure to Sua Sponte Voir Dire the Jury
Mid-Trial Regarding the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church ........... 79
IV. Liberation Army Letter ............................................... 82
A. Admission of Liberation Army Letter ............................... 85
B. Failure to Redact Liberation Army Letter .......................... 86
V. District Court Denial of Murad's Motion
to Suppress His Post-Arrest Statement ................................ 87
A. District Court Decision ........................................... 88
B. Standard of Review ................................................ 90
C. Murad's Alleged Request for a Lawyer .............................. 91
D. Voluntariness of Confession ....................................... 93
1. FBI Coercion ................................................... 93
2. Hegarty's Testimony ............................................ 94
3. Murad's Allegations of
Torture by Philippine Officials ................................ 95
4. United States Government's Lack of
Knowledge Regarding Philippine Mistreatment .................... 96
E. Harmless Error .................................................... 97
VI. Murad's Sixth Amendment Right to Present a Defense ................... 98
A. Applicable Law .................................................... 98
B. Reports by Amnesty International and the
United States Department of State Regarding
Abusive Treatment by Philippine Police ............................ 99
C. Discovery from the Philippines .................................... 100
D. Jury Charge on Voluntariness ...................................... 102
VII. "Bully" Charge on Circumstantial Evidence of Intent .................. 104
VIII. Sufficiency of the Evidence on Yousef's Attempt Convictions .......... 108
WORLD TRADE CENTER CASE ........................................................ 111
Page 5
BACKGROUND ................................................................... 111
I. Indictment and Apprehension of Yousef and Ismoil ..................... 111
II. The World Trade Center Bombing Trial ................................. 112
DISCUSSION ................................................................... 115
I. Yousef's Pre-Trial Motions ........................................... 116
A. Motion to Dismiss the Indictment .................................. 116
B. Motion to Suppress ................................................ 120
1. Attachment of Sixth Amendment Right
to Counsel Upon Indictment for the
World Trade Center Bombing ..................................... 121
2. Invocation of Right to Counsel ................................. 123
3. Sixth Amendment Rights Based on
Assignment of Asylum Counsel ................................... 126
4. Purported Due Process Requirement
of Appointment of Counsel ...................................... 128
5. Voluntariness of Yousef's Post-Arrest Statements ............... 128
II. Ismoil's Motion to Suppress His
Statement to Jordanian Authorities ................................... 129
III. The Daubert Hearing .................................................. 135
IV. Yousef's Motion to Sever ............................................. 138
V. The Admission of Ismoil's Redacted Statement ......................... 144
VI. Yousef's Motion for a Change of Venue ................................ 150
VII. Exclusion of Evidence of Government's Inconsistent Theories .......... 151
VIII. Admission of Government's Fingerprint
Evidence and Telephone Call Charts ................................... 154
IX. Jury Instructions Concerning Ismoil's Knowledge ...................... 156
X. Jury Instruction on "Aiding and Abetting" ............................ 160
XI. Failure to Dismiss the Alternate Jurors .............................. 160
XII. Cumulative Violation of Right to Fair Trial .......................... 162
SENTENCING ISSUES ............................................................ 162
I. Ex Post Facto Claim .................................................. 163
II. Length of Sentences...To continue reading
Request your trial