United States v. Mubayyid
658 F.3d 35
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Complex joint federal prosecution of Muntasser, Mubayyid, and Al-Monla for conspiracy to defraud the IRS, obstructing the administration of the Internal Revenue laws, filing false tax returns, false statements to FBI agents, and concealing material facts; Care International, Inc. linked to Al-Kifah/MAK and alleged to fund jihad via tax-exempt status; district court acquittals on some counts and trial court convictions on others; First Circuit reverses acquittal on Count 2 and reinstates the conspiracy verdict while affirming other convictions; evidence centered on Care’s activities (Al-Hussam newsletters, website, orphan sponsorship) misrepresented to the IRS to sustain tax exemption; appellate review is de novo on sufficiency and variance grounds and includes analysis of prejudice from trial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court correctly acquitted on the conspiracy charge | Government argues narrower conspiracy proven; district court erred by variance | Defendants contend variance altered essential crime elements and prejudiced defense | Reversed; conspiracy conviction reinstated |
| Whether the variance to a narrower conspiracy was permissible and non-prejudicial | Government asserts variance with included acts; no prejudicial impact | Defendants contend constructive amendment/prejudice | Permissible variance, not a constructive amendment; no substantial prejudice shown |
| Whether the government proved the narrower conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt | Evidence showed tacit agreement to defraud through falsified Form 990s | Insufficient evidence of a pre-1993 agreement; reliance on post-hoc inferences improper | Sufficient evidence supports narrower conspiracy to fraudulently maintain Care’s tax exemption |
| Whether admission of terrorism evidence prejudiced the jury against Mubayyid and Muntasser | Evidence relevant to conspiracy; admissible with limiting instructions | Inflammatory and prejudicial spillover from terrorism context | No reversible prejudice; evidence properly contextualized and limited by instructions |
| Whether Mubayyid’s false-tax filings were supported by a fundamentally ambiguous question | Question 76 ambiguity could negate willfulness | Question 76 ambiguous; defense interpreted narrowly | Question 76 not fundamentally ambiguous; sufficient evidence supported falsity beyond reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Glenn v. United States, 828 F.2d 855 (1st Cir. 1987) (permissible variance to a narrower conspiracy case when charges differ in scope)
- Miller v. United States, 471 U.S. 130 (Supreme Court, 1985) (narrowing of indictment supported where no broadening; added detail not altering essence of offense)
- Mueffelman v. United States, 470 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2006) (variance vs. constructive amendment; breadth of conspiracy analyzed)
- Celestin v. United States, 612 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2010) (language in indictment surplusage if not essential to offense; constructively narrowing charge permissible)
- Dowdell v. United States, 595 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2010) (upholding indictment as to substance when extra detailing does not alter the crime)