United States v. Abdirahman Mohamed
727 F.3d 832
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- In 2009 an FBI sting used a confidential informant (CI) wearing a recording device to purchase items at Omaha International Food Mart and request $100 cash back on an EBT (food-stamp) card; Mohamed, the cashier, gave the CI $100 and the CI wired the money out of the store.
- A federal grand jury indicted Mohamed on two counts of food-stamp fraud; only Count II (the Feb. 22, 2009 transaction) is at issue on appeal; the jury convicted on Count II and acquitted on Count IV.
- The government played a DVD of selected portions of the CI’s recording and offered a translated transcript (Exhibit 7) of only food-stamp–related portions; an FBI linguist who did a quality-control review (testifying under a pseudonym) authenticated the transcript but had not prepared the original translation.
- Mohamed moved to disqualify the translator and to exclude Exhibit 7 for incompleteness; the court held a hearing, permitted the linguist to use a pseudonym at trial (disclosing the real name to defense counsel only), and denied the motion to exclude Exhibit 7.
- At trial the CI identified Mohamed in court and on the tape; an EBT receipt and Mohamed’s admissions that he had training and knew cash-back on EBT was unlawful corroborated the prosecution’s case.
Issues
| Issue | Mohamed's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of a selectively translated transcript (Exhibit 7) — Confrontation Clause | The original translator (not the QC reviewer) must testify so Mohamed can confront the translator. | Any error was harmless; transcript and QC testimony were cumulative to CI and other evidence. | Any Confrontation Clause error, if any, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; admission affirmed. |
| Admission of Exhibit 7 — Rule of Completeness (Fed. R. Evid. 106) | Omitting nontranslated portions prevented elimination of ambiguity; entire recording should be translated. | Government provided full audio pretrial; defendant could have identified portions to translate and cross-examine the linguist. | No abuse of discretion; defendant had opportunity to review audio and cross-examine. |
| Use of a pseudonym by testifying linguist | Use of pseudonym denied effective cross-examination and violated Confrontation Clause (Smith v. Illinois). | Real name was disclosed to defense counsel and qualifications were explored at trial. | No violation: defense had the linguist’s real name (to investigate) and could cross-examine credentials. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | (Implicit) Transcript and other evidence were insufficient. | CI testimony, receipt, Mohamed’s admissions, and corroboration support conviction. | Evidence sufficient; conviction upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mueller, 661 F.3d 338 (8th Cir. 2011) (harmless-error analysis for potential Confrontation Clause violations)
- United States v. Holmes, 620 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2010) (harmless-error framework for constitutional violations)
- Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (1985) (knowledge requirement for Food Stamp Act prosecutions)
- Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129 (1968) (witness anonymity and confrontation principles)
- United States v. Vega, 676 F.3d 708 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)