United States v. Mohammad, 3:15-cr-00358

Defendants Yahya Farooq Mohammad and Ibrahim Zubair Mohammad were indicted (with co-defendants) on charges including material support to terrorists (18 U.S.C. § 2339A), bank fraud conspiracy, and obstruction of justice.
Government alleges defendants raised and provided funds to Anwar al‑Awlaki and AQAP and attempted to conceal/destroy records and give false statements to the FBI.
Defendants moved for production and inspection of the entire grand jury minutes, arguing the indictment could only have been obtained if the government misinstructed the grand jury about § 2339A and First Amendment protections.
Defendants emphasize timing: alleged July 2009 support predated al‑Awlaki’s State Department designation and public endorsements of specific violent acts, so defendants could not have known funds would support violent acts.
Court treated the request under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) and the Douglas Oil three‑part particularized‑need test for grand jury disclosure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether grand jury minutes must be produced under Rule 6(e)	Government: grand jury secrecy presumptively controls; no particularized need shown	Defendants: need transcript to show improper legal instructions that violated First Amendment and that indictment is unsupported given timing of events	Denied — defendants failed to show particularized need and requested overbroad production
Whether alleged improper grand jury instructions are shown by timing evidence	Government: maintains no showing of taint or necessity to overcome secrecy	Defendants: timing (July 2009) shows they could not have known support would fund violent acts, so indictment must have rested on protected speech	Court: timing arguments amount to a sufficiency‑of‑evidence challenge, which cannot justify disclosure of grand jury materials
Whether defendants outweighed public interest in secrecy	Government: secrecy interest is strong (witness candor, safety, flight risk, reputation)	Defendants: speculate government misled grand jury; request secrecy be pierced	Court: speculation uncorroborated; defendants did not show their need outweighed secrecy
Whether defendants tailored the request to relevant material	Government: Rule 6(e) requires narrow, structured requests	Defendants: requested entire grand jury minutes	Court: request was not narrowly tailored; should have sought only portions with legal instructions; broad request inappropriate

Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979) (establishes particularized‑need test and importance of grand jury secrecy)
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992) (limits challenges to indictments based on grand jury evidence insufficiency)
Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956) (facially valid indictments generally not reviewable for evidentiary sufficiency)
McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989 (6th Cir. 1997) (issues perfunctorily argued are waived)
United States v. Price, [citation="582 F. App'x 846"] (11th Cir. 2014) (rejects fishing expeditions into grand jury transcripts)