United States v. Jayyousi
657 F.3d 1085
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Federal indictment in SD Fla charged Hassoun, Jayyousi, and Padilla (plus Youssef and Daher) with international terrorism offenses related to supporting Islamist violence.
- Counts 1–3: Count 1 conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim overseas; Count 2 conspiracy to provide material support for conspiracy; Count 3 substantive §2339A material support tied to the §956(a)(1) conspiracy.
- Trial evidence included intercepted calls, financial records, travel to jihad training camps, and a mujahideen identification form purportedly for Padilla.
- Defendants argued lack of intent to support violence and emphasized humanitarian aid; government framed a secretive support cell tied to al-Qaeda–MAK and related groups.
- Evidence included FBI Agent Kavanaugh’s code-word interpretations, Dr. Gunaratna’s terrorism expertise, and a televised bin Laden interview used to show state-of-mind evidence.
- District court admitted most evidence, denied motions for acquittal/new trial, and imposed concurrent sentences with a 20-year supervised release for each.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Agent Kavanaugh’s lay opinion | Kavanaugh’s opinions were rationally based on perception and helpful to understanding. | Kavanaugh lacked first-hand observations and relied on investigation; improper lay opinion. | No reversible error; testimony proper under Rule 701. |
| Sufficiency of evidence | Evidence showed a conspiratorial network and Padilla/Jayyousi knew funds and training supported violence. | Insufficient nexus between defendants and violent acts; humanitarian intent shown. | Sufficient evidence to support Counts 1–3 for Padilla and Padilla/Jayyousi on Count 3. |
| Admissibility of Dr. Gunaratna's testimony | Expertise offered essential background on terrorism networks and code terms. | Methodology unreliable due to undisclosed sources and confidentiality; possible plain error. | District court did not abuse its discretion; testimony admitted. |
| Admissibility of televised Osama bin Laden interview | Evidence probative of state of mind and support network. | Risk of unfair prejudice; relevance limited; custodial concerns. | District court’s Rule 403 balancing was proper; admission not reversible. |
| Padilla Miranda rights at airport | Interrogation non-custodial at entry point; Miranda warnings not required. | Padilla was in custody; Miranda warnings required before interrogation. | Miranda violation found; district court judgment reversed on Padilla’s statements. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hamaker, 455 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2006) (lay witness allowed to summarize voluminous records when rationally based on perception)
- United States v. Cano, 289 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 2002) (lay opinion cannot interpret encoded meaning based only on evidence; must be personal perception)
- United States v. Gold, 743 F.2d 800 (11th Cir. 1984) (limits on lay opinion based on business-record familiarity)
- United States v. Rollins, 544 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2008) (lay opinion admissible when derived from case-specific perceptions)
- United States v. Arias-Izquierdo, 449 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2006) (plain error review for Rule 701 improper testimony)