United States v. Ghailani

Decision Date24 October 2013
Docket NumberNo. 11–320–cr.,11–320–cr.
Citation733 F.3d 29
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ahmed Khalfan GHAILANI, a/k/a Fupi, a/k/a Abubakary Khalfan Ahmed Ghaliliani, Defendant–Appellant, Wadih El Hage, a/k/a Abdus Sabbur, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, a/k/a Harun Fazhl, a/k/a Fazhl Abdullah, a/k/a Fazhl Khan, Mohamed Sadeek Odeh, a/k/a Abu Moath, a/k/a Noureldine, a/k/a Marwan, a/k/a Hydar, Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-'Owhali, a/k/a Khalid Salim Saleh Bin Rashed, a/k/a Moath, a/k/a Abdul Jabbar Ali Abel–Latif, Usama Bin Laden, a/k/a Usamah Bin–Muhammad Bin–Ladin, a/k/a Shaykh Usamah Bin–Ladin, a/k/a Mujahid Shaykh, a/k/a Hajj, a/k/a Qaqa, a/k/a The Director, Muhammad Atef, a/k/a Abu Hafs, a/k/a Abu Hafs El Masry, a/k/a Abu Abu Hafs El Masry E. Khabir, a/k/a Taysir, a/k/a Aheikh Taysir Abdullah, Mustafa Mohamed Fadhil, a/k/a Mustafa Ali Elbishy, a/k/a Hussein, a/k/a Hassan Ali, Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, a/k/a Khalfan Khamis, Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan, a/k/a Sheikh Bahamadi, a/k/a Ahmed Ally, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, a/k/a Abu Hajer Al Iraqi, a/k/a Abu Hajer, Ali Mohamed, a/k/a Omar, a/k/a Ali Abdelseoud Mohamed, a/k/a Abu Omar, a/k/a Haydara, a/k/a Taymour Ali Nasser, a/k/a Ahmed Bahaa Adam, Ayman Al Zawahiri, a/k/a Abdel Muaz, a/k/a The Doctor, Khaled Al Fawwaz, a/k/a Abu Omar, a/k/a Khaled Abdul Khaled Abdul Rahman, a/k/a Hamad Al Fawwaz, Hamad, Ibrahim Eidarous, a/k/a Ibrahim H.A. Eidarous, a/k/a Daoud, a/k/a Abu Abdullah, a/k/a Ibrahim, Bary, a/k/a Adel M.A.A.A. Bary, a/k/a Abbas, a/k/a Abu Dia, a/k/a Adel, Saif Al Adel, a/k/a Saif, Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, a/k/a Abu Mohamed El Masry, a/k/a Saleh, a/k/a Abu Marium, Muhsin Musa Matwalli Atwah, a/k/a Abdel Rahman Al Muhajer, a/k/a Abdel Rahman, Anas Al Liby, a/k/a Nazih Al Raghie, a/k/a Anas Al Sebai, L'houssiane Kherchtou, a/k/a Abu Talal, a/k/a Talal, a/k/a Yusuf, a/k/a Joseph, a/k/a Jamal, Mohamed Suleiman Al Nalfi, a/k/a Nalfi, a/k/a Abu Musab, a/k/a Mohamed Suleiman Adam, Jamal Ahmed Mohammed Al–Badawi, a/k/a Abu Abed Al Rahman Al–Badawi, Fahd Al–Quso, a/k/a Abu Hathayfah Al–Adani, Defendants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Peter Enrique Quijano (Nancy Lee Ennis, Anna N. Sideris, on the brief), Quijano & Ennis, P.C., New York, NY, for DefendantAppellant.

Michael Farbiarz, Assistant United States Attorney (Harry A. Chernoff, Nicholas J. Lewin, Sean S. Buckley, Katherine Polk Failla, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.

Before: LEVAL, CABRANES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge:

Defendant Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani appeals his judgment of conviction, entered January 25, 2011, after a trial by jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Lewis A. Kaplan, Judge ), of conspiring to bomb the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The bombings, which occurred simultaneously on August 7, 1998, killed over two hundred people, and injured thousands more.

This appeal presents a question bound to arise from the government's efforts to obtain actionable and time-sensitive intelligence necessary to thwart acts of terror, while still bringing those charged with committing crimes of terrorism against Americans to justice in an orderly fashion under the laws of our country. We are asked whether the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution prevents the United States from trying, on criminal charges in a district court, a defendant who was held abroad for several years by the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) and the Department of Defense while his indictment was pending.1

To determine whether trial delays caused a violation of a defendant's constitutional speedy trial right, we must, in each case, consider the public and private interests at stake by balancing four factors set forth by the Supreme Court. Those factors are: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) whether the defendant asserted his right in the run-up to the trial; and (4) whether the defendant was prejudiced by the failure to bring the case to trial more quickly.

We conclude that, based upon a balancing of these four factors, the District Court correctly determined that, in the circumstances presented here, there was no violation of Ghailani's right under the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment. In so holding, we reject Ghailani's claim that the government may never, no matter how expeditiously it acts, bring a defendant to trial after detaining him for national security purposes. We also reject Ghailani's argument that the delay occasioned by national security concerns and preparations for trial before a military commission was so excessive as to bar the government from thereafter proceeding to trial. For well over a century, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government may purposely delay trials for significant periods of time, so long as, on balance, the public and private interests render the delay reasonable. We also reject Ghailani's argument that he was prejudiced for constitutional speedy trial purposes by his treatment during his detention by the CIA. The Speedy Trial Clause protects defendants against prejudice caused by delays in their trials, not against the harms of interrogation.

Additionally, we address whether the District Court erred in (1) giving the jury a “conscious avoidance” instruction; and (2) sentencing the defendant to life in prison.

As for the conscious avoidance instruction, which permitted the jury to convict Ghailani if he purposely avoided confirming the likely goals of the criminal conspiracy, Ghailani argues that there was insufficient evidence for a rational juror to infer that he was aware of the likelihood that his efforts would contribute to the bombing of American embassies. This claim has no merit, and we hold that the District Court did not err in so charging the jury.

As for Ghailani's sentence, we conclude that a sentence of life imprisonment, based on a conviction for conspiring to destroy United States buildings and property and directly or proximately causing the deaths of 224 people, was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.

BACKGROUND2

On August 7, 1998, operatives of al Qaeda 3 simultaneously detonated explosivesat the United States embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, the bombs killed two hundred and thirteen people, and injured approximately four thousand more. In Dar es Salaam, eleven died and eighty-five were injured.4

Sometime in 1996 or 1997, Ghailani and three other men—Fahid Mohammad Ally Msalam (“Msalam”), Sheikh Ahmed Swedan (“Swedan”), and Khalfan Khamis Mohamed (K.K. Mohamed)—were recruited by al Qaeda to serve as its “East Africa crew,” including serving as the logistics team for the bombings of the two American embassies. During 1997 and 1998, until the time of the bombings, Ghailani lived in Dar es Salaam. In the months leading up to the bombings, Ghailani procured a number of items necessary for building an explosive device on the back of a truck. First, Ghailani, accompanied by Msalam, purchased seven large metal tanks filled with flammable gas from two welders in Dar es Salaam. Second, Ghailani, this time accompanied by Swedan, bought a Nissan Atlas refrigeration truck from a broker with whom he was friendly. After the refrigeration unit had been removed, he had a welder install a stand for two large batteries, which was enclosed in a lockable compartment, and make several other unusual modifications to the truck. Finally, Ghailani hid blasting caps—small explosive devices that are often used to detonate larger secondary explosives—in a locked armoire in his home. These materials were ultimately brought to a private compound in Dar es Salaam, which had been rented by K.K. Mohamed and another conspirator, where the explosives were assembled and the Nissan Atlas was outfitted for its purpose.5

Ghailani did not remain in Dar es Salaam to witness the fruits of his labor. Just a day prior to the bombings, Ghailani, using a false passport, boarded a plane with several al Qaeda leaders and flew to Karachi, Pakistan. Several of Ghailani's coconspirators were captured soon after the bombings. See generally In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 93, 101–08 (2d Cir.2008). Although Ghailani was not among those captured, he was indicted along with them on December 16, 1998. The captured coconspirators were subsequently tried and convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Leonard B. Sand, Judge ) for their roles in the bombings.

Although Ghailani was indicted along with his associates in 1998, he eluded authorities for the next six years. Throughout that time—which included the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001—Ghailani remained an active and engaged member of al Qaeda. He was finally captured abroad on July 25, 2004, and was held outside of the United States for approximately two years by the CIA. Judge Kaplan made the following factual findings regarding this period:

Ghailani was detained and interrogated by the CIA outside of the United States for roughly two years. Many details of the [CIA's interrogation program] and its application to specific individuals remain classified. Nevertheless, it may be said that it sought to obtain critical, real-time intelligence about terrorist networks and plots by using a combination of so-called “standard” and “enhanced” interrogation techniques to question detainees thought to have particularly high-value intelligence information. These techniques were “designed to psychologically ‘dislocate’ the detainee, maximize his feeling of vulnerability and helplessness, and reduce or eliminate his will to resist [the United States government's] efforts to obtain...

To continue reading

Request your trial
123 cases
  • Mohamed v. Holder, Civil Action No. 1:11cv0050 (AJT/MSN)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 20 Julio 2017
    ...U.S. 536, 546, 76 S.Ct. 861, 100 L.Ed. 1396 (1956) ; United States v. Sterling, 724 F.3d 482, 509 (4th Cir. 2013) ; United States v. Ghailani, 733 F.3d 29, 47 (2d Cir. 2013) ; Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174, 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ; United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057, 1082 (4th Cir. 1988).......
  • Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman Al Bahlul v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 20 Octubre 2016
    ...see also, e.g., Nizar Trabelsi, No. 15-3075 (D.C. Cir., argued May 17, 2016); United States v. Ghailani, 733 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2013). For detainees ill-suited for prosecution in Article III courts, the government has other options. It may detain them as enemy belligerents. See Hamdi v. Rumsf......
  • U.S. v. Black
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 18 Marzo 2019
    ...the abuse-of-discretion standard authorizes broad review of a district court’s balancing of the Barker factors, United States v. Ghailani , 733 F.3d 29, 44 (2d Cir. 2013) ("[I]n evaluating a defendant’s rights under the Speedy Trial Clause, a district court is in no better position than a r......
  • Al Bahlul v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 20 Octubre 2016
    ...see also, e.g. , Nizar Trabelsi , No. 15–3075 (D.C. Cir., argued May 17, 2016); United States v. Ghailani , 733 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2013).For detainees ill-suited for prosecution in Article III courts, the government has other options. It may detain them as enemy belligerents. See Hamdi v. Rum......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Sentencing
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • 1 Agosto 2022
    ...required for disputed PSR paragraphs because court “made it plain” it would not rely on contested facts in sentencing); U.S. v. Ghailani, 733 F.3d 29, 54-55 (2d Cir. 2013) (no evidentiary hearing required over hearsay because court repeatedly stated it would not affect sentence); U.S. v. Kl......

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