United States v. Ghailani
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5751
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Ghailani was indicted in 1998 for conspiring to bomb U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and related counts; he was captured in Pakistan and transferred to CIA custody before SDNY trial.
- A jury found Ghailani guilty on Count 5 (conspiracy to destroy U.S. buildings and property) and not guilty on 284 other counts; verdict included a special finding that Count 5 caused at least one death.
- Evidence showed a multi-stage Al Qaeda operation in the 1990s, including leadership, surveillance, logistics, execution teams, and use of aliases and false documents.
- Ghailani allegedly participated in key conspiracy acts: purchasing the Dar es Salaam bomb truck, obtaining gas cylinders, and storing detonators in a locked armoire.
- Defense argued Ghailani was an innocent dupe; the government responded with a conscious-avoidance theory and rebuttal summation portraying Ghailani as knowing or willful.
- Ghailani moved for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 or, alternatively, for a new trial under Rule 33; the court denied both.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Count 5 evidence | Ghailani joined conspiracy with knowledge and intent. | Ghailani acted as a dupe with no knowledge of conspiracy aims. | Evidence sufficient to sustain conspiracy and intent beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Inconsistent verdicts and conspiracy | Inconsistent verdicts do not undermine Count 5. | Acquittals on related counts undermine Count 5. | No necessary inconsistency; Dunn/Powell rule applies; Count 5 upheld. |
| Conscious avoidance instruction | Conscious avoidance correctly applied to conspiracy knowledge. | Instruction was improper or prejudicial. | Conscious avoidance properly charged and supported by evidence. |
| Prosecutor's summation | Summation fairly responded to dupe defense without shifting burden. | Summation was improper Napue-like misconduct. | Not egregious misconduct; no due process violation; no new trial required. |
| Rule 33 new trial standard | Verdict would be manifestly unjust if Count 5 flawed. | No extraordinary circumstances warranting new trial. | No manifest injustice; Rule 33 denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dunn, 284 U.S. 390 (1932) (consistency not required; separate offenses構)
- Powell v. United States, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (inconsistent verdicts should not undermine convictions absent double jeopardy)
- Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1 (1954) (substantive and conspiracy offenses are separate crimes)
- Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1 (1954) (double jeopardy not violated where conspiracy proof differs from substantive proof)
- United States v. Fassoulis, 445 F.2d 13 (2d Cir. 1971) (origin of 'necessary proof' concept in conspiracy cases)
- United States v. Chen, 378 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2004) (treatment of 'necessary proof' in conspiracy vs. substantive offenses)
- United States v. Palmieri, 456 F.2d 9 (2d Cir. 1972) (inconsistent verdicts principle and conspiracy vs. substantive rounds)
- United States v. Acosta, 17 F.3d 538 (2d Cir. 1994) (independence of sufficiency review across counts; Dunn/Powell harbor)
- United States v. Ramirez, 320 Fed.Appx. 7 (2d Cir. 2009) (Rule 33 standard and manifest injustice framework)
- United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2001) ( Rule 33 standards; extraordinary circumstances caveat)