United States v. Bhimani, 3:17-cr-00324

Background

Defendants Nazim Hassam, Om Sri Sai, Inc., and Pocono Plaza Inn were tried with co-defendant Faizal Bhimani on charges including sex‑trafficking (18 U.S.C. §1591), drug‑trafficking conspiracy (21 U.S.C. §846), and maintaining drug premises (21 U.S.C. §856). A Second Superseding Indictment covered conduct from 2011–2019.
Jury trial ran October 5–23, 2020; the jury convicted all defendants on all counts. Forfeiture findings followed for several properties.
Defendants moved under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 (judgment of acquittal) and alternatively under Rule 33 (new trial), arguing insufficiency of evidence (particularly as to Hassam and corporate liability) and alleged Constitutional error from admission of co‑defendant Bhimani’s out‑of‑court statements (Bruton/Crawford spillover).
Government’s trial proof included extensive witness testimony and physical records showing pervasive drug sales and sex‑trafficking at the Howard Johnson and Pocono Plaza, routine placement of traffickers in a rear wing, cash payments (some paid directly to Hassam), employee reports ignored, and continued patterns after Bhimani’s 2017 arrest.
Court had previously ruled on admissibility/redaction of Bhimani’s recorded statement; redactions removed statements that directly incriminated Hassam while admitting statements as agent admissions against corporate defendants.
The district court denied the defendants’ Rule 29 and Rule 33 motions in full, holding the evidence sufficient and that no Bruton/Crawford violation or prejudicial spillover warranted a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence on Count 3 (drug conspiracy) as to Hassam	Gov't: ample circumstantial and direct evidence (witnesses, texts, cash payments, pattern of placing dealers in back wing, willful blindness) supports conspiracy conviction	Hassam: no proof of agreement/meeting of minds with dealers; insufficient evidence he joined conspiracy	Denied — reasonable juror could find agreement and willful blindness; evidence sufficient for conviction
Corporate liability / scope of employment for Om Sri Sai (Counts 1–4)	Gov't: Bhimani and Hassam acted as agents; their actions (renting rooms, hiring/retaining dealers, cash payments) were within scope and intended to benefit corporation	Om Sri Sai: Bhimani acted outside scope of employment; corporate cannot be liable for employee’s independent crimes	Denied — record supported agency, scope, and intent to benefit corporation; jury instructions appropriate
Sufficiency / new trial on Count 5 (Pocono Plaza) as to Hassam and Pocono Plaza Inn	Gov't: independent evidence of rampant drug activity at Pocono Plaza, supervisor knowledge, directives not to call police, employee testimony supports liability	Defendants: evidence tied to Howard Johnson and Bhimani; insufficient proof linking Hassam/Pocono Plaza to Count 5 conduct	Denied — testimony and records provided ample proof of knowledge/willful blindness and that premises were knowingly made available
Bruton / Crawford / spillover prejudice from Bhimani’s statements	Gov't: redacted interview and agent‑admissions to corporate defendants were admissible; other non‑codefendant evidence independent	Defendants: Bhimani’s statements and other inflammatory evidence against him prejudiced non‑testifying co‑defendants and violated confrontation/due process	Denied — court’s prior redactions and limiting instructions cured Bruton concerns; agent‑admission doctrine and independent evidence precluded prejudice requiring new trial

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Bruton v. United States, 319 U.S. 123 (out‑of‑court statements by non‑testifying co‑defendant that directly incriminate another may violate Confrontation Clause)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial statements by a witness who does not testify at trial are subject to Confrontation Clause)
Caraballo‑Rodriguez v. United States, 726 F.3d 418 (3d Cir.) (standards on Jackson review and sufficiency)
United States v. Wert‑Ruiz, 228 F.3d 250 (3d Cir.) (willful blindness instruction upheld where defendant deliberately avoided knowledge)
Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (discusses intra‑enterprise conspiracy doctrine; scope limited)
United States v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 20 F.3d 974 (9th Cir.) (corporate liability for conspiracies by employees/agents)
United States v. Coyle, 63 F.3d 1239 (3d Cir.) (on heavy burden required to overturn convictions for insufficiency)