United States v. Pirouz Sedaghaty
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22234
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Seda was convicted in a tax fraud case involving Al-Haramain-U.S. and a 2000 Form 990 misreport; the government alleged funds intended for Chechnya mujahideen were concealed through the tax return.
- The El-Fiki donation of $150,000 was routed via Al-Haramain-U.S. through traveler’s checks and a cashier’s check to co-defendant Al-Buthe, with subsequent transfers and depostits confusing the money trail.
- The form 990 distortion included misstated building costs and mischaracterized donations, with Wilcox as accountant and Seda claiming he relied on his accountant’s entries.
- Post-trial, the government disclosed previously undisclosed witness impeachment materials (Barbara Cabral) and FBI payments, leading Seda to move for a new trial based on Brady v. Maryland.
- The court found Brady violations (impeachment material) and improper handling of classified information under CIPA, and remanded for a new trial; it also addressed the scope of the search warrant and computer-seizure issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady materiality of impeachment evidence | Seda | Government withheld impeachment material | New trial warranted for Brady violation |
| Adequacy of substitution under CIPA §6(c)(1) | Seda | Substitution provided substantially the same defense | Substitution inadequate; remand for new trial |
| Scope of search warrant and computer seizure | Seda | Evidence beyond scope reasonable under warrant | Search exceeded scope; remand for suppression analysis under Leon/Herring |
| Ex parte CIPA proceedings and notices | Seda | Ex parte proceedings permissible to protect national security | Ex parte proceedings upheld; no due process violation established |
| Effect of withholding evidence on trial fairness | Seda | Other evidence supports conviction; no prejudice | Cumulative errors prejudicial enough for new trial; not to address sentence on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (material impeachment evidence required for fair trial)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (materiality assessed by collective suppression impact on fairness)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (materiality of suppressed evidence when impeachment affects credibility)
- United States v. Moussaoui, 382 F.3d 453 (4th Cir. 2004) (substitution under CIPA must preserve defense ability)
- Doe v. Groody, 361 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2004) (affidavit cannot expand scope of warrant when not incorporated)