United States v. El-Mezain, 09-10560

• Decision Date: 07 December 2011
• Docket Number: 08-10664,10-10586,10-10590,08-10774,No. 09-10560,09-10560
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. MOHAMMAD EL-MEZAIN; GHASSAN ELASHI; SHUKRI ABU BAKER; MUFID ABDULQADER; ABDULRAHMAN ODEH; HOLY LAND FOUNDATION FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT, also known as HLF, Defendants - Appellants UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. SHUKRI ABU BAKER; MOHAMMAD EL-MEZAIN; GHASSAN ELASHI; MUFID ABDULQADER; ABULRAHMAN ODEH, Defendants - Appellants UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. MOHAMMAD EL-MEZAIN, Defendant - Appellant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee - Cross-Appellant v. HOLY LAND FOUNDATION FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT, also known as HLF, Defendant - Appellant -Cross-Appellee UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. SHUKRI ABU BAKER, Defendant NANCY HOLLANDER, Appellant
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
MOHAMMAD EL-MEZAIN; GHASSAN ELASHI; SHUKRI ABU BAKER; MUFID ABDULQADER;
ABDULRAHMAN ODEH; HOLY LAND FOUNDATION FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT, also known as HLF, Defendants - Appellants
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
SHUKRI ABU BAKER; MOHAMMAD EL-MEZAIN; GHASSAN ELASHI;
MUFID ABDULQADER; ABULRAHMAN ODEH, Defendants - Appellants
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
MOHAMMAD EL-MEZAIN, Defendant - Appellant
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee - Cross-Appellant
v.
HOLY LAND FOUNDATION FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT, also known as HLF, Defendant - Appellant -Cross-Appellee
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff
v.
SHUKRI ABU BAKER, Defendant
NANCY HOLLANDER, Appellant

No. 09-10560
08-10664
08-10774
10-10590
10-10586

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

December 7, 2011

Consolidated with

Page 2

Consolidated with

Page 3

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Before KING, GARZA, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

KING, Circuit Judge:

In this consolidated case, we address the appeals of five individuals and one corporate defendant convicted of conspiracy and substantive offenses for providing material aid and support to a designated terrorist organization. The terrorist organization at issue is Hamas, which in 1995 was named a Specially Designated Terrorist by Presidential Executive Order pursuant to authority granted by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. Hamas was further designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997, as contemplated by 18 U.S.C. § 2339B.

Although this case is related to terrorism, it does not involve charges of specific terrorist acts. Instead, it focuses on the defendants' financial support for terrorism and a terrorist ideology. The defendants were charged with aiding Hamas by raising funds through the corporate entity Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Texas-based, pro-Palestinian charity that the Government charged was created for the sole purpose of acting as a financing arm for Hamas. Although the charged conspiracy began in 1995 when Hamas was first designated as a terrorist organization, the defendants' connection to Hamas arose much earlier.

Established in the late 1980s, the Holy Land Foundation held itself out as the largest Muslim charitable organization in the United States. It raised

Page 4

millions of dollars over the course of its existence that were then funneled to Hamas through various charitable entities in the West Bank and Gaza. Although these entities performed some legitimate charitable functions, they were actually Hamas social institutions. By supporting such entities, the defendants facilitated Hamas's activity by furthering its popularity among Palestinians and by providing a funding resource. This, in turn, allowed Hamas to concentrate its efforts on violent activity.

The trial, which followed an earlier mistrial and lasted approximately six weeks, produced a massive record on appeal. The Government produced voluminous evidence obtained from covert surveillance, searches, and testimony showing a web of complex relationships connecting the defendants to Hamas and its various sub-groups. The financial link between the Holy Land Foundation and Hamas was established at the Foundation's genesis and continued until it was severed by the Government's intervention in 2001.

The defendants raise a host of issues challenging both their convictions and their sentences, including numerous errors that they claim deprived them of a fair trial. While no trial is perfect, this one included, we conclude from our review of the record, briefs, and oral argument, that the defendants were fairly convicted. For the reasons explained below, therefore, we AFFIRM the district court's judgments of conviction of the individual defendants. We DISMISS the appeal of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.

Page 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Factual and Procedural Background................................................................. 7

II. Discussion...........................................................................................................16

A. Testimony of witnesses using pseudonyms.............................................16
B. Hearsay evidence......................................................................................22

1. Mohamed Shorbagi.........................................................................23
2. Documents seized from the Palestinian Authority.......................27
3. Elbarasse and Ashqar documents..................................................34

C. Prejudicial evidence under Rule 403.......................................................46
D. Expert and lay opinion testimony...........................................................52

1. John McBrien..................................................................................52
2. FBI Agents Lara Burns and Robert Miranda...............................56
3. Matthew Levitt................................................................................59
4. Steven Simon...................................................................................60

E. Letter rogatory..........................................................................................62
F. Production of the defendants' intercepted statements...........................65
G. Harmless and cumulative error..............................................................77

1. Harmless error................................................................................78

a. HLF's connection to Hamas..................................................80
b. Hamas's control of the zakat committees............................88

2. Cumulative error.............................................................................94

H. Jury charge...............................................................................................94
I. The search of HLF's offices.....................................................................101
J. Defendant Elashi's double jeopardy issue.............................................111

1. Time...............................................................................................113
2. Co-conspirators.............................................................................114
3. Statutory offenses.........................................................................115
4. Overt acts......................................................................................117

Page 6

5. Place...............................................................................................120

K. Defendant El-Mezain's collateral estoppel issue..................................121

1. Collateral estoppel as a bar to the instant conviction.................122
2. Collateral estoppel and the exclusion of evidence.......................132

L. Mistrial and double jeopardy.................................................................134
M. Challenge to FISA applications and intercepts...................................142

1. Disclosure of FISA applications and orders................................143
2. Suppression of FISA intercepts....................................................151

N. Sentencing..............................................................................................154

1. Terrorism adjustment...................................................................154
2. Value of laundered funds..............................................................156

O. Appeals of HLF and Nancy Hollander..................................................158

1. Background...................................................................................158
2. HLF's appeal.................................................................................165
3. Hollander's appeal........................................................................169

III. Conclusion.......................................................................................................170

Page 7

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The instant prosecution began with an indictment of the defendants in 2004 that ended in a mistrial in 2007 but with a partial verdict. The defendants were re-tried and convicted in 2008. The indictment, as superseded, charged the defendants with conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization (i.e., Hamas), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1) (Count 1); providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1) (Counts 2-10); conspiracy to provide funds, goods, and services to a Specially Designated Terrorist (i.e., Hamas), in violation of 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1706 (Count 11); providing funds, goods, and services to a Specially Designated Terrorist, in violation of 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1706 (Counts 12-21); conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count 22); substantive money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A) (Counts 23-32); forfeiture of assets; and certain tax offenses not relevant to this appeal.

The charges arose after many years of widespread surveillance conducted pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") of several individuals and of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development ("HLF"). Until it was closed by the Government in 2001, HLF was a pro-Palestinian charitable organization based in Richardson, Texas. Individual defendants Shukri Abu Baker, Ghassan Elashi, and Mohammad El-Mezain served as officers and directors for HLF. Defendant Abdulrahman Odeh managed HLF's New Jersey office, and Defendant Mufid Abdulqader was a speaker and performer who appeared at HLF fundraising events.

HLF held itself out to be the largest Muslim charity in the United States, ostensibly with the mission of providing humanitarian assistance to needy Palestinians living in the Israeli-occupied territory of the...