950 F.3d 348
6th Cir.2020Background
- Erick Jamal Hendricks was indicted for one count of conspiracy and one count of attempt to provide material support (personnel and services) to ISIS in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1).
- Four witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and an undercover FBI agent, Special Agent Jane) testified that Hendricks recruited and organized a domestic jihadist cell, urged training and weapons use, and sought further recruits.
- Hendricks authored and directed publication of a communique claiming responsibility for an attack as the "Islamic State in America," appended the ISIS flag, and had the communique shared with ISIS supporters abroad.
- In conversations with the undercover agent, Hendricks described his group as a limb to ISIS’s "brain," said he had spoken to "senior brothers" who advised him to remain in the U.S., and discussed coordination and recruitment.
- The district court denied Hendricks’s Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal and his Rule 33 motion for a new trial, and it partially closed the courtroom during the undercover agent’s testimony to protect the agent’s identity; Hendricks appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed Hendricks’s convictions, holding the evidence sufficient, the denial of a new trial not an abuse of discretion, and the partial closure properly justified and narrowly tailored.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove attempt and conspiracy under §2339B | Government: Circumstantial and testimonial evidence showed Hendricks acted with intent, coordinated with/for ISIS, and took substantial steps (recruiting, publishing claim, contacting ISIS members). | Hendricks: Evidence shows only independent pro-ISIS actions; no direct proof he acted under ISIS direction or control. | Affirmed — a rational juror could infer direction/benefit to ISIS from communications, limb/brain analogies, contacts with "senior brothers," propaganda-sharing, and recruitment activities. |
| Rule 33 motion for new trial (evidence weighs against verdict) | Government: Evidence was credible and sufficient; district court properly weighed evidence and credibility. | Hendricks: Absence of direct links to ISIS renders verdict against weight of evidence. | Affirmed — district court did not clearly and manifestly abuse discretion; jury verdict not heavily preponderant against evidence. |
| Partial courtroom closure during undercover agent testimony (Sixth Amendment public-trial right) | Government: Witness safety and ongoing investigations required limiting public view; closure narrowly tailored with alternatives considered. | Hendricks: Partial closure violated right to public trial; court should have required clearer findings and less-restrictive measures (e.g., heavier disguise or screen). | Affirmed — court identified substantial reason (safety/integrity), considered alternatives, narrowly tailored restrictions, and made adequate findings traceable on the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (defines "personnel" and limits independent advocacy under the material-support statutes)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) (sets test and procedures for closing criminal trials or portions thereof)
- United States v. Simmons, 797 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2015) (applies Waller; explains findings/alternatives required for partial closures and reversal consequences)
- United States v. Davis, 397 F.3d 340 (6th Cir. 2005) (describes defendant's heavy burden in sufficiency challenges)
- United States v. Spearman, 186 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 1999) (affirms that circumstantial evidence alone can sustain a conviction)