United States v. Kifah Wael Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1071

Indictment in the Southern District of Florida charged Hassoun, Jayyousi, and Padilla (and co-defendants Youssef and Daher) with supporting Islamist violence overseas.
Counts: (1) conspiracy in the United States to murder, kidnapping, or maim abroad; (2) conspiracy to provide material support for such acts; (3) substantive § 2339A material support tied to the § 956(a)(1) conspiracy.
Trial resulted in a special verdict finding all three defendants guilty on Counts 1–3; Padilla, Hassoun, and Jayyousi received concurrent prison terms with a 20-year supervised release; Padilla and Hassoun received longer sentences than Jayyousi on Counts 1 and 3.
The district court denied motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial; the government cross-appealed Padilla’s sentence.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit vacates Padilla’s sentence and remands for re-sentencing while affirming convictions; issues include evidentiary rulings and sentencing grounds.
Dissenting concurrence discusses Rule 701 limitations and Miranda custody implications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Agent Kavanaugh’s lay testimony	Kavanaugh’s lay opinion was rational, based on investigation.	Kavanaugh lacked first-hand perception and exceeded Rule 701.	Admissible lay testimony under Rule 701.
Sufficiency of evidence for Padilla and Jayyousi on Count 3	Evidence showed intent to support violent jihad overseas.	Insufficient proof that defendants knew use of training camps to support violence.	Sufficient evidence to convict Padilla and Jayyousi on Count 3; counts 1–2 affirmed.
Admissibility of Dr. Gunaratna’s expert testimony	Dr. Gunaratna offered relevant terrorism expertise.	Methodology unreliable; confidentiality and translation issues undermine reliability.	Admissible; no plain error; district court did not abuse discretion.
Admissibility of Osama bin Laden television interview clip	Video supports defendants’ state of mind.	Rule 403 risk of unfair prejudice; only limited, non-central use.	District court did not abuse discretion; clip admitted as state-of-mind evidence with limiting instructions.
Padilla’s statements and Miranda warnings at airport interview	statements obtained without Miranda warnings were admissible.	Interrogation at border and subsequent custodial interrogation violated Miranda.	Majority: initial statements non-custodial; later custodial interrogation required warnings; suppression warranted for later statements; remand for Padilla’s suppression issue.

Hamaker v. United States, 455 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir.2006) (lay expert-like testimony permissible when based on extensive document review and perception)
United States v. Cano, 289 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir.2002) (lay interpretation of coded hieroglyphics invalid when based on evidence, not perception)
United States v. Awan, 966 F.2d 1415 (11th Cir.1992) (permissible lay opinion when witness personally observed or participated; not here)
United States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968 (11th Cir.2001) (lay opinion by law enforcement about recorded conversations admissible with real-time observation)
United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness review in sentencing post-Booker)