United States v. Abukar Beyle, 782 F.3d 159

In Feb 2011 nineteen Somali pirates seized the U.S.-flagged yacht Quest with four U.S. citizens aboard; U.S. Navy intercepted the yacht 30–40 nautical miles off Somalia. Three pirates (Beyle, Abrar, Afmagalo) shot and killed the four Americans; surviving pirates were captured and brought to the U.S. for prosecution.
A superseding indictment charged each of the three with 26 counts including piracy, hostage-taking and kidnapping resulting in death, murder within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction, and related firearms offenses.
At trial a jury convicted Beyle and Abrar on all counts and recommended life sentences; the district court imposed multiple life terms and additional consecutive sentences.
Beyle appealed, arguing the murders occurred inside Somalia’s territorial sea (so U.S. statutes lacked maritime jurisdiction), relying on Somalia’s prior 1972 claim and UNCLOS’s EEZ regime.
Abrar appealed, arguing the district court denied him due process and compulsory process by failing to secure or permit testimony from foreign witnesses (in Somalia and Yemen) who could corroborate his duress/kidnaped-by-others defense.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo the legal jurisdiction question and for abuse of discretion the district court’s evidentiary/compulsory-process rulings, and affirmed both convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether murders 30–40 nm off Somalia were on the “high seas” so U.S. maritime criminal statutes apply	Beyle: location lies within Somalia’s asserted maritime claim (effectively up to 200 nm or EEZ), so killings were not on the high seas and U.S. high-seas jurisdiction does not apply	Government: customary international law (and UNCLOS practice) limits territorial sea to 12 nm; waters beyond that are high seas (EEZ does not confer full sovereign criminal jurisdiction)	Court: the territorial sea is limited to 12 nm; at 30–40 nm the Quest was on the high seas and U.S. statutes applied — Beyle’s jurisdictional challenge rejected
Whether denial of access to foreign witnesses (Somalia/Yemen) violated due process/compulsory process and requires dismissal of indictment	Abrar: inability to subpoena or obtain testimony from overseas witnesses prevented him from developing duress defense and deprived him of a fair trial	Government/District Ct: subpoena power does not extend to foreign nationals abroad; alleged witnesses were inaccessible, possibly non-existent, and their expected testimony was tangential; other means (proffer, available co-defendants, telephone/depositions) were offered or available	Court: no constitutional violation. Practical limits on compulsory process apply; proposed testimony was not shown to be material or likely to change outcome; denial of dismissal affirmed

Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (defendants’ challenge reviewed viewing evidence in light most favorable to government)
United States v. Dire, 680 F.3d 446 (4th Cir.) (discussing piracy statutes and definition under international law)
United States v. Louisiana, 394 U.S. 11 (definition that high seas lie outside territorial sea)
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (piracy typically occurs on the high seas)
Valenzuela-Bernal v. United States, 458 U.S. 858 (Sixth Amendment compulsory process limited where court cannot secure foreign witness)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (due process includes right to a fair opportunity to defend)
United States v. Moussaoui, 382 F.3d 453 (4th Cir.) (district court’s process power does not reach foreign nationals abroad)
United States v. Shibin, 722 F.3d 233 (4th Cir.) (recognizing territorial sea generally limited to 12 nautical miles)