United States v. Burson Augustin
661 F.3d 1105
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Appellants were convicted on four counts relating to conspiracy to provide material support to Al Qaeda (Counts 1 and 2) and conspiracies to damage federal property (Sears Tower and FBI building) and to levy war (Count 4).
- Evidence included recordings by FBI confidential informants and described oath ceremonies, plans to attack federal targets, and discussions of acquiring weapons and funding.
- Key events: oath ceremony pledging allegiance to Al Qaeda; photographing and videotaping federal buildings; discussions of Sears Tower bombing; FBI building plot disclosed during oath.
- Emails, lists, and meetings in Miami (Embassy) and subsequent travel proposals to train overseas were admitted as part of the government’s case.
- Three trials occurred; the third jury convicted some defendants on Counts 1–2 while acquitting others on Counts 3–4, and one juror was later dismissed for refusing to follow the court’s instructions; the appellate court affirmed all convictions.
- The government moved to strike surplusage from the indictment, the district court partially granted and denied the motion, and the Third Circuit held the amendments did not broaden the indictment or violate the Treason Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surplusage amendment to indictment okay? | Batiste argues Rule 7(d) limits only defendant-initiated strikes. | Batiste contends government motion to strike surplusage widens indictment. | Yes; strike did not broaden the indictment, and allowed under Supremacy |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Counts 1–2 | Augustin/Phanor/Augustine argue lack of mens rea under 2339B(h) | Government proof shows oath and ongoing cooperation under Al Qaeda direction | Sufficient; jury could infer conspiracy to provide material support and personnel under direction of Al Qaeda |
| Outrageous government conduct due process | Augustin asserts extreme government involvement violating due process | Government involvement not so outrageous given participation by willing defendants | Not plain error; conduct not so outrageous as to require dismissal |
| Evidentiary rulings on lay/expert testimony | Batiste challenges Velazquez lay/expertness and Young’s expert on Jeff Fort | Testimony aided jury; not improper under Rule 704(b) or 702 | Rulings within discretion; not reversible error |
| Juror dismissal and deliberations | Batiste argues improper handling of juror misconduct and notes; argues improper dismissal | Court exercised discretion to ensure fair deliberations | District court acted within its discretion; juror removed; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ward, 486 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2007) (indictment notice and elements sufficiency)
- United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985) (elements vs charging document; surplusage may be deleted)
- United States v. Cancelliere, 69 F.3d 1116 (11th Cir. 1995) (government may strike surplusage; not broaden indictment)
- United States v. Deverso, 518 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2008) (elements defined by Congress, not charging document)
- United States v. Haimowitz, 725 F.2d 1561 (11th Cir. 1984) (outrageous government conduct; rarity standard)