United States v. Khan Mohammed
402 U.S. App. D.C. 330
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Mohammed was convicted and sentenced to two life terms for narcoterrorism based on a DEA sting in Nangarhar, Afghanistan, involving Jaweed as an informant and Mohammed as a drug-trafficking participant.
- Jaweed recorded Mohammed discussing the airfield attack and Mohammed’s intended use of narcotics proceeds to facilitate the attack and to obtain a car for missile transport.
- DEA and Afghan police arrested Mohammed in 2006; interview at Jalalabad airfield followed Miranda warnings but with no signing of rights waiver.
- Mohammed moved to suppress the interrogation statements in 2008, arguing an involuntary Miranda waiver; the district court denied suppression.
- Mohammed failed to present witnesses at trial; afterward he argued ineffective assistance of counsel for not pursuing Afghanistan-based witnesses identified to bolster his defense.
- The court affirmed the conviction and sentence but remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective-assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Mohammed’s Miranda waiver valid and the suppression motion properly denied? | Mohammed | Mohammed | Waiver found valid; any error harmless |
| Does 21 U.S.C. § 960a require a drug-terror nexus (specific intent to fund terrorism)? | Mohammed | Mohammed | Statutory text governs; no extra nexus requirement |
| Did the district court properly apply the terrorism enhancement under § 3A1.4(a)? | Mohammed | Mohammed | Evidence supported finding of intended use to buy a car to facilitate attacks |
| Should the ineffective-assistance claim be resolved on direct appeal or remanded? | Mohammed | Mohammed | Remand for evidentiary hearing; record insufficient to resolve on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2003) (ineffective-assistance claims generally heard in district court)
- United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (U.S. 2004) (physical fruit of unwarned statements; use in trial governs admissibility)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (unwarned statements may be used for impeachment unless involuntary)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S. Ct. 2250 (U.S. 2010) (no coercion shown in long interrogation; voluntariness considerations)
- Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (U.S. 1969) (lie during interrogation is a factor but not sole determinant of voluntariness)
- United States v. Rashad, 331 F.3d 908 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (remand standard when record does not conclusively resolve Strickland claim)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (appellate review of factual findings by trial court; defer to district court credibility determinations)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2003) (Massaro cited for district court as forum best suited to develop facts in ineffectiveness)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1978) (voluntariness considerations in confessions)
- Erazo, 628 F.3d 608 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (clear-error standard for sentencing-factor findings)
- Wood v. United States, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 342 (U.S. 1842) (statutory interpretation principles; overlap of statutes permissible)