United States v. Mehanna, 735 F.3d 32

Background

Mehanna was convicted on seven counts after a 37-day trial in the District of Massachusetts.
Counts 1–4 charged terrorism-related offenses (conspiracies and material support to al-Qa'ida) and Counts 5–7 charged false-statements.
The Yemen trip in 2004 and translations on the at-Tibyan website formed the terrorism-related evidentiary basis.
Evidence included his statements, coconspirator testimony, travel plans, and online materials signaling intent to engage in jihad abroad.
The district court denied judgments of acquittal; Mehanna received a 210-month sentence.
On appeal, Mehanna challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, First Amendment issues, and his sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for terrorism counts	Mehanna contends the Yemen trip and translations do not prove conspiracies or material support.	Evidence is protected First Amendment activity and not enough to convict on four counts.	Evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions on counts 1–4.
Jury instructions on coordination and First Amendment	District court misdefined coordination or misled about First Amendment protections.	Instructions improperly constrained consideration of First Amendment defenses and coordination.	No reversible error in the instructions; they properly framed coordination and First Amendment limits.
Admissibility of coconspirator statements	Statements pre- and post-Yemen were admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) as coconspirator statements.	Some statements predate conspiracy or fall outside the rule’s scope; admissibility questioned.	Admission of coconspirator statements upheld; no reversible error.
Rule 403 balancing of terrorist-media evidence	大量 media evidence was probative of motive and intent and admissible.	Media was highly prejudicial and inflamed the jury against Mehanna.	District court did not abuse Rule 403; evidentiary weight outweighed prejudicial risk in context.
Application of sentencing guidelines (ex post facto concern)	Guidelines in effect at sentencing should apply; amendment in 2004 could affect base levels.	If culpable activity occurred before 2004 amendment, earlier guidelines should apply.	Court properly applied the 2011 guidelines; conspiracies extended into 2006, avoiding ex post facto error.

Key Cases Cited

Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991) (legal-error vs. factual-sufficiency distinction in juries)
United States v. Gobbi, 471 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 2006) (sufficiency review for terrorism-related offenses)
Sepulveda v. United States, 15 F.3d 1161 (1st Cir. 1993) (evidentiary review and reasonable inferences for jury verdicts)
Olbres v. United States, 61 F.3d 967 (1st Cir. 1995) (standard for weighing inference-based evidence at trial)
United States v. Davis, 623 F.2d 188 (1st Cir. 1980) (hearsay and conspiracy evidentiary rules)
Goergen v. United States, 683 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (one-book rule and guideline application timing)
Harotunian v. United States, 920 F.2d 1040 (1st Cir. 1990) (guidelines application timing in sentencing)