(English) 1-07-cr-00543-DLI-1, 377-main

8/9/2019 (English) 1-07-cr-00543-DLI-1, 377-main

1/6


2/6

2

Pur suant t o Ti t l e 18, Uni t ed St at es Code, Sect i on 3500, t hegover nment pr ovi ded r epor t s and ot her mat er i al f or t he wi t nesseswho sei zed t he phot ogr aphs on May 3, 2010. The gover nment agai npr ovi ded t he def endant wi t h t he phot ogr aphs, mar ked as gover nmentexhi bi t s, subst ant i al l y i n advance of openi ng st at ement s and t het aki ng of t r i al t es t i mony.

On J une 30, 2010, counsel f or def endant Abdul Kadi rdel i ver ed an openi ng st at ement i n whi ch she ar gued t hat Kadi r wasan upst andi ng ci t i zen i n Guyana and a har dwor ki ng communi t yl eader who never had any i nt er est i n t he pl ot t o at t ack J FK Ai r por t . ( Tr i al Tr anscr i pt ( "T") 2385) . Dur i ng cross-exami nat i on, counsel has r epeat edl y sought t o por t r ay Kadi r asmor al l y opposed t o of f ensi ve vi ol ent act i vi t y. ( T 3225, 3268,3270- 71, 3272- 73, 3286) . The def endant has i ndi cat ed t hat hei nt ends t o t est i f y, ( T 3254) , and has i ndi cat ed hi s i nt ent t ocal l at l east one char act er wi t ness at t he t r i al . See Pr oposed

J ur y I nst r uct i ons f or def endant Kadi r , f i l ed J une 26, 2010,Docket Number 325, at 18- 19 ( r equest i ng j ur y i nst r uct i on ont est i mony of char act er wi t ness) .

On J ul y 13, 2010, t he def endant f i l ed a mot i on t opr ecl ude t he admi ss i on of t he at t ached phot ogr aphs.

I I . The Phot ogr aphs Sei zed f r om t he Def endant s Possessi onat t he Ti me of Hi s Ar r est En Rout e t o I r an Ar eAdmi ssi bl e

The gover nment seeks t o i nt r oduce i nt o evi dence t heencl osed phot ogr aphs, whi ch wer e sei zed f r om def endant Kadi r ' spossessi on at t he t i me of hi s ar r est , as pr oof of Kadi r ' s i nt entand st at e of mi nd as he t r avel ed t o I r an i n f ur t her ance of t heconspi r acy t o at t ack J ohn F. Kennedy ai r por t .

As i n al l cr i mi nal cases, t he gover nment bear s t hebur den of pr ovi ng t he def endant s mens r ea i n connect i on wi t h t hechar ged cr i mes. I n t he i nst ant case, dur i ng r ecor dedconver sat i ons t hat wer e admi t t ed i nt o evi dence as Gover nmentExhi bi t s 224 and 225, Kar eem I br ahi m, a co- conspi r at or andl ongt i me f r i end of def endant Kadi r , i ndi cat ed t hat t he next st epi n t he pl ot t o at t ack J ohn F. Kennedy I nt er nat i onal Ai r por t

i nvol ved pr esent i ng t he pl ot t o cont act s i n I r an. J ust ei ghtdays l at er , Kadi r was ar r est ed i n Tr i ni dad en r out e t o I r an i npossessi on of t he encl osed phot ogr aphs, whi ch depi ct Kadi r andf ami l y member s br andi shi ng numer ous f i r ear ms i n mi l i t ant poses.

The phot ogr aphs and t he ci r cumst ances of t hei r sei zur e ar e t hus

Case 1:07-cr-00543-DLI Document 377 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2760


3/6

3

admi ssi bl e as di r ect evi dence of Kadi r s i nt ent and st at e of mi nddur i ng hi s t r i p t o I r an i n f ur t her ance of t he char ged conspi r acy.

The pr obat i ve val ue of t he phot ogr aphs i s enhancedsi gni f i cant l y by t he def endant s cl ai ms dur i ng counsel s openi ngst at ement and dur i ng cr oss- exami nat i on. Def endant Kadi r hasadvanced t he posi t i on t hat he never had any i nt er est i n t hi spl ot and t hat hi s i ndi ct ment was t he r esul t of t he gover nment ' sagenda. ( Tr . 2385) . I n her openi ng st at ement , counsel f orKadi r f ocused t he j ur y s at t ent i on on t he def endant s char act eri n cl ai mi ng t hat he di d not have t he r equi si t e i nt ent t o commi tt he cr i mes char ged. ( T 2385- 2387) . Def ense counsel ar gued t ot he j ur y t hat Kadi r i s a man who l i ves i n t he count r y of Guyana,was wel l - r espect ed, 9 chi l dr en, 24 gr andchi l dr en, wor ki ng guyand t hat he was j ust a man who had a dr eam t o bui l d a mosque, aShi i t e mosque, i n Guyana. ( Tr . 2385, 2387) . Counsel al sochar act er i zed Kadi r s t r avel s t o I r an as pur el y r el i gi ous andi nnocent , as Shi i t e Musl i ms go t o I r an j ust as Cat hol i cs go t ot he Vat i can, and j ust because he sent hi s chi l dr en t o st udy i nI r an, i n uni ver si t y wher e t hey t each t hi ngs l i ke et hi cs andf or ei gn l anguages t hat does not make hi m a bad per son. ( Tr .2385- 86) . Dur i ng cr oss- exami nat i on of t he gover nment swi t nesses, counsel f or def endant Kadi r r epeat edl y asser t ed t hatKadi r di d not condone aggr essi on, nor even def ensi ve vi ol ence i nGuyana, as, accor di ng t o def ense counsel , i nst i t ut i ons i n need of def ense had not been bui l t . ( T 3225, 3268, 3270- 71, 3272- 73,3286) . The phot ogr aphs t hemsel ves di r ect l y r ebut t he def endant scl ai ms r egar di ng hi s pur por t edl y peacef ul char act er . Mor eover ,t he def endant s deci si on t o car r y t hose phot ogr aphs wi t h hi m t oI r an on hi s t r i p t o pr esent t he pl ot t o at t ack J FK Ai r por t t oi nt er est ed par t i es cl ear l y demonst r at es t he ser i ousness of hi si nt ent t o f ur t her t he goal s of t he conspi r acy despi t e hi s cl ai mst o the cont r ar y.

I n Uni t ed St at es v. Khal i l , 214 F. 3d 111 ( 2d Ci r .2000) , t he Second Ci r cui t uphel d t he admi ssi on of si mi l arphot ogr aphi c evi dence i n a f act ual scenar i o near l y i dent i cal t ot hat pr esent ed i n t hi s case. I n Khal i l , wher e t he def endant waschar ged wi t h conspi r i ng and t hr eat eni ng t o use a weapon of massdest r uct i on, t he gover nment i nt r oduced i n i t s case- i n- chi ef phot ogr aphs of t he def endant br andi shi ng a shot gun whi l e wear i ng

appar el associ at ed wi t h vi ol ent mi l i t ant s. I d. at 116. Then-Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge Reena Raggi admi t t ed t he phot ogr aphsas evi dence of t he def endant s s t at e of mi nd and t o r ebut def ensear gument s t hat t he def endant l acked i nt ent t o commi t t he cr i me,as he cl ai med t hat he had no dest r uct i ve obj ect i ve and mer el yi nt ended t o obt ai n a r ewar d f r om t he gover nment by pr et endi ng t opr event a t er r or i st at t ack. I d. at 122. The Second Ci r cui t hel d



4/6

4

t hat J udge Raggi s deci si on t o admi t t he phot ogr aphs was wel lwi t hi n t he Cour t s di scr et i on and r ej ect ed t he def endant s cl ai mof er r or . I d. The Second Ci r cui t r easoned t hat t he phot ogr aphswer e r el evant t o r ebut t he def ense por t r ayal s of [ t he def endant ]as havi ng no dest r uct i ve obj ect i ve and posi ng no r eal t hr eat . I d.

As i n Khal i l , t he phot ogr aphs i n t hi s case depi ct t hedef endant and hi s f ami l y member s br andi shi ng f i r ear ms, i n amanner associ at ed wi t h mi l i t ancy. Si mi l ar l y, as i n Khal i l , t hedef ense has ar gued t hat t he def endant l acked i nt ent t o commi t t hecr i me, had no i nt er est i n vi ol ence and mer el y i nt ended t o obt ai nmoney by pr et endi ng t o be i nvol ved i n a t er r or i st pl ot . Appl yi ngKhal i l t o t he f act s at hand, t he Cour t shoul d admi t t he encl osedphot ogr aphs i nt o evi dence.

The def endant ar gues t hat admi ssi on of t he phot ogr aphsr uns af oul of Rul e 404( b) of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence ( Rul e404( b) ) . He i s i ncor r ect . Fi r st , [ e] vi dence of unchar gedcr i mi nal act i vi t y i s not consi der ed ot her cr i mes evi dence . . .i f i t ar ose out of t he same t r ansact i on or ser i es of t r ansact i onsas t he char ged of f ense, i f i t i s i next r i cabl y i nt er t wi ned wi t ht he evi dence r egar di ng t he char ged of f ense, or i f i t i s necessaryt o compl et e t he st or y of t he cr i me on t r i al . Cour t Or der , J une3, 2010, Docket Number 271, at 3 ( i nt er nal quot at i on omi t t ed) .As set f or t h above, t he phot ogr aphs ar e di r ect pr oof of anel ement of t he char ged of f ense, and ar ose out of t he same ser i esof t r ansact i ons as t he char ged of f enses, as t hey wer e sei zed f r omt he def endant ' s possessi on as he t r avel ed t o I r an i n f ur t her anceof t he conspi r acy t o at t ack J ohn F. Kennedy I nt er nat i onalAi r por t .

Mor eover , t o t he ext ent t hat Rul e 404( b) appl i es her e,t he evi dence i s cl ear l y admi ssi bl e under t he Second Ci r cui t ' si ncl usi onar y appr oach t o t hat Rul e. Cour t Or der , J une 3, 2010,Docket Number 271, at 4. I n par t i cul ar , evi dence of ot her act s i s cor r ect l y admi t t ed i f : ( 1) i t [ i s ] of f er ed f or a pr operpur pose; ( 2) i t [ i s ] r el evant t o a di sput ed t r i al i s sue; ( 3) i t spr obat i ve val ue i s [ not ] subst ant i al l y out wei ghed by i t s possi bl e[ unf ai r ] pr ej udi ce; and ( 4) t he t r i al cour t admi ni s t er [ s] apr oper l i mi t i ng i ns t r uct i on. I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on omi t t ed) .

As set f or t h above, t he gover nment i s of f er i ng t he evi dence f ort he pr oper pur pose of pr ovi ng t he def endant ' s i nt ent . See Fed.R. Evi d. 404( b) ( i ncl udi ng i nt ent i n non- exhaust i ve l i s t of pr oper pur poses) . Mor eover , t he gover nment i s al so of f er i ng t heevi dence t o r ebut t he def ense por t r ayal s of [ t he def endant ] ashavi ng no dest r uct i ve obj ect i ve and posi ng no r eal t hr eat , apur pose expr essl y appr oved by t he Second Ci r cui t i n Khal i l . 214



5/6

1 We not e t hat t he def endant has i ndi cat ed hi s i nt ent t ot est i f y and cal l a char act er wi t ness, see supr a. Shoul d t hedef endant of f er such evi dence, a l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on under Rul e404( b) woul d be unnecessar y because t he phot ogr aphs woul d beadmi ssi bl e evi dence of char act er , pur suant t o Rul e 404( a) ( 1) of t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence.

5

F. 3d at 122. As i n Khal i l , t he evi dence i s di r ect l y r el evant t ot he par amount i ssue of di sput e at t he t r i al - - def endant Kadi r ' si nt ent and st at e of mi nd. I d.

Wi t h r espect t o t he t hi r d i nqui r y under Rul e 404( b) ,t he cour t must appl y Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 403 t o det er mi nei f t he pr obat i ve val ue of a par t i cul ar pi ece of evi dence i ssubst ant i al l y out wei ghed by i t s pot ent i al f or unf ai r pr ej udi ce. Cour t Or der , J une 3, 2010, Docket Number 271, at 4. As set f or t habove, t he evi dence has si gni f i cant pr obat i ve val ue on t he keyi ssue at t he t r i al . Mor eover , any pot ent i al f or pr ej udi ce i smi t i gat ed by t he f act t hat t he bad act i n quest i on - - possessi onof f i r ear ms - - i s a f ar l ess ser i ous cri me t han t hose f or whi ch[ t he def endant ] i s bei ng t r i ed. Cour t Or der , J une 3, 2010,Docket Number 271, at 7 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l l i ams, 205F. 3d 23, 34 ( 2d Ci r . 2000) . I ndeed, i n Khal i l , t he SecondCi r cui t r ej ect ed a Rul e 403 chal l enge t o phot ogr aphs depi ct i ngt he def endant s possessi on of f i r ear ms wher e t he def endant was ont r i al f or t er r or i sm of f enses, even wher e t he def endant wasassumi ng a post ur e of mar t yr dom. Khal i l , 214 F. 3d at 122.

Wi t h r espect t o t he f our t h i nqui r y, t he gover nmentcont i nues t o asser t t hat t he evi dence i s di r ect l y admi ssi bl ewi t hout r esor t t o Rul e 404( b) and t hus no l i mi t i ng i nst r uct i on i snecess ar y. However , shoul d t he Cour t deem Rul e 404( b)appl i cabl e, t he gover nment woul d not obj ect t o a l i mi t i ngi nst r uct i on t hat t he evi dence coul d onl y be consi der ed t odemonst r at e t he def endant s i nt ent and st at e of mi nd dur i ng t hecour se of t he char ged of f enses. 1

I I I . Concl usi on

For t he r easons s et f or t h above, t he gover nmentr espect f ul l y submi t s t hat t he def endant s mot i on shoul d bedeni ed. The gover nment f ur t her s ubmi t s t hat t he phot ogr aphssei zed f r om t he def endant s possessi on at t he t i me of hi s arr est



6/6

6

dur i ng hi s t r i p t o I r an i n f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy shoul dbe admi t t ed i nt o evi dence.

Respect f ul l y submi t t ed,

LORETTA E. LYNCHUni t ed St at es At t or ney

By: / s/ Mar shal l L. Mi l l erMar shal l L. Mi l l er

J ason A. J onesBer i t W. Ber gerZai nab AhmadAssi st ant U. S. At t or neys( 718) 254- 6421/ 7553/ 6134/ 6522

cc: Kaf ahni Nkr umah, Esq. ( vi a ECF and emai l ) Toni Mess i na, Esq. ( vi a ECF and emai l )Mi l dr ed Whal en, Esq. ( vi a ECF)Len Kamdang, Esq. ( vi a ECF)


(English) 1-07-cr-00543-DLI-1, 377-main

Documents

Transcript of (English) 1-07-cr-00543-DLI-1, 377-main