United States v. Wassim Mazloum
695 F.3d 457
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Amawi, El-Hindi, and Mazloum conspired with FBI informant Griffin to train for jihad and potentially fight overseas; they pursued explosive and IED training, fundraising, and recruitment activities from 2004–2006.
- Griffin embedded in Toledo Muslim community; defendants examined jihadist videos, discussed attacks, and planned training with Griffin in early 2005.
- On February 16, 2005, the four met to discuss training, funding, and potential targets, signaling a shared, though not uniform, objective.
- Defendants were charged with conspiracy to kill/maim abroad (18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1)) and to provide material support to terrorists (18 U.S.C. § 2339A), plus Amawi’s and El-Hindi’s counts for distributing explosive information (18 U.S.C. § 842(p)(2)(A)).
- The district court conducted ex parte CIPA/FISA proceedings and the court denied discovery of certain materials while reviewing FISA information in camera; on appeal, the court upheld those procedures as proper under CIPA/FISA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CIPA discovery standard applied | Yunis standard governs; materials must be relevant and helpful | Brady/Yunis mix; de novo review warranted | CIPA error (if any) harmless; Yunis applicable standard applied |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy | Defendants joined a common plan to kill/maim abroad and provide support | No joint target or plan; minimal interaction shows no conspiracy | Evidence supports conspiracy under §956(a)(1) and §2339A and is not insufficient as a matter of law |
| Exclusion of defense experts Alterman and Aslan | Kohlmann testimony alone insufficient to explain intent | Expert background needed to provide context and alternatives | Exclusion not abuses of discretion; majority opinion affirmed, though concurrence found some potential value in excluded testimony |
| Amawi’s Miranda rights and interrogation | Statements obtained during flight were voluntary and admissible | Ambiguous invocation of right to counsel; potential invocation should halt questioning | No clear invocation; interrogation upheld; waiver voluntary |
| First Amendment jury instruction | Conviction based on speech related to political/religious beliefs allowed | Need instruction to require non-protected speech for conviction | District court did not err in denying instruction; speech can be used as evidence of intent in conspiracy |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Yunis, 867 F.2d 617 (D.C.Cir.1989) (adopts ‘relevant and helpful’ standard for classified discovery)
- United States v. Hanna, 661 F.3d 271 (6th Cir.2011) (adopts Yunis standard in CIPA context)
- United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.2008) (limits/discusses material that is helpful to the defense under Yunis)
- Mejia v. United States, 448 F.3d 436 (D.C.Cir.2006) (exemplifies deference to district court’s CIPA rulings and harmless error)
- United States v. Crossley, 224 F.3d 847 (6th Cir.2000) (conspiracy requires knowledge and assent to a common objective)