United States v. Mostafa
19-2520
| 2d Cir. | Oct 13, 2021Background
- Mostafa Kamel Mostafa was convicted by jury on May 19, 2014 of 11 terrorism-related counts (hostage-taking; material support to terrorists and to a foreign terrorist organization; IEEPA-related conspiracy).
- This Court previously reversed two counts (Counts Seven and Eight) for insufficient evidence and otherwise affirmed Mostafa’s convictions and life sentence on prior appeal.
- Mostafa filed a pro se Rule 33 motion for a new trial and later a motion for reconsideration; the district court limited review to claims based on newly discovered evidence because it had earlier extended only the three-year filing window for such motions.
- Mostafa argued (among other things) ineffective assistance of counsel based on his counsel’s waiver of his presence for portions of trial and alleged failure to provide exculpatory discovery; he sought a remand for an evidentiary hearing.
- The district court declined to consider the ineffective-assistance claim under Rule 33 and denied the motion and reconsideration; the Second Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / scope of Rule 33 deadlines | Mostafa argued constraints prevented timely filing and the district court should consider all grounds. | Court/USA: District court properly extended only the 3-year window for newly discovered evidence, not the 14-day window. | Affirmed: Court did not abuse discretion; other-grounds deadline long expired. |
| Whether ineffective-assistance claim qualifies as "newly discovered evidence" under Rule 33 | Mostafa: Trial transcripts and counsel’s conduct are newly discovered grounds for retrial. | Government: Transcripts and knowledge of counsel’s actions were known or knowable; not newly discovered. | Held: Not newly discovered; Rule 33 inapplicable. |
| Whether district court should remand for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance | Mostafa: District court never considered the claim; factual development needed. | Government: Habeas (§2255) is proper forum to develop ineffective-assistance facts. | Held: No remand; habeas proceedings are the appropriate forum. |
| Sufficiency of evidence on Counts One & Two (hostage-taking) | Mostafa: Challenges sufficiency of evidence for kidnapping/hostage counts. | Government: Presented ample evidence (e.g., satellite phone provision, taped interview). | Held: Convictions on Counts One & Two were supported by ample evidence; claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. James, 712 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 33 review)
- United States v. DiTomasso, 932 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2019) (same standard for hearing decision on Rule 33)
- United States v. Gramins, 939 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2019) (Rule 33 relief is disfavored; extraordinary circumstances required)
- United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2001) (manifest injustice test for new trial)
- United States v. Forbes, 790 F.3d 403 (2d Cir. 2015) (elements for newly discovered evidence under Rule 33)
- United States v. Castillo, 14 F.3d 802 (2d Cir. 1994) (claims of ineffective assistance are not "newly discovered evidence" for Rule 33)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (habeas is preferred forum to develop ineffective-assistance facts)
- United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2009) (reluctance to intrude on jury function absent exceptional circumstances)
- Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (liberal construction of pro se briefs with limits)
- United States v. Brown, 623 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2010) (excusable neglect standard for filing extensions)