Expert answer:CRM361 Saint Leo University United States v Yousef

  

Solved by verified expert:This paper should be a minimum of two (2) pages in length, in APA format and conform case brief format. I have attached the case material for review as well as for citation purposes.
united_states_v._yousef.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Expert answer:CRM361 Saint Leo University United States v Yousef
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Page 1
327 F.3d 56, 61 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 251
(Cite as: 327 F.3d 56)
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Ramzi Ahmed YOUSEF, Eyad Ismoil, also known as
Eyad Ismail, and Abdul Hakim Murad, also known as
Saeed Ahmed, Defendants–Appellants,
Mohammed A. Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud
Abouhalima, also known as Mahmoud Abu Halima,
Bilal Alkaisi, also known as Bilal Elqisi, Ahmad Mohammad Ajaj, also know as Khurram Khan, Abdul Rahman Yasin, also know as Aboud, and Wali Khan Amin
Shah, also known as Grabi Ibrahim Hahsen, Defendants.
Docket Nos. 98–1041L, 98–1197, 98–1355, 99–1544,
99–1554.
Argued: May 3, 2002.
Decided: April 4, 2003.
Defendant and a codefendant were convicted in a
jury trial in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Kevin Thomas Duffy,
J., of charges relating to a conspiracy to bomb United
States commercial airliners in southeast Asia, and defendant and a different codefendant were convicted by a
jury in the same court, on charges relating to the 1993
bombing of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New
York City. Defendants appealed. The Court of Appeals
held that: (1) district court had extraterritorial jurisdiction over defendants’ attempts to damage aircraft in foreign air commerce; (2) venue for airline bombing case
was proper in Southern District of New York; (3) codefendant’s confession to FBI agents while being brought
to the U.S. from the Philippines was admissible; (4)
codefendant received adequate discovery from the Philippines; (5) defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights
was not rendered invalid simply because his right to
counsel had attached; (6) defense could be required to
produce their experts for Daubert hearing; (7) defendants were not prejudiced by joint trial; (8) evidence
from first WTC bombing trial was inadmissible; (9) re-
tention of alternate jurors after jury retired to deliberate
was not plainly erroneous; (10) 180-year sentences were
not unlawful upward departures from statutory maximum term of life imprisonment; (11) fine and restitution
requirements of one codefendant’s sentence required
modification so as to become payable only in event
codefendant received income from sale of his account
of WTC bombing; (12) court lacked jurisdiction to consider challenges to conditions of confinement recommended by district court; (13) procedural defects in
handling of materials relating to a jailhouse informant
did not warrant reversal or a fact-finding hearing; and
(14) district judge did not abuse his discretion by declining to recuse himself.
Affirmed as modified.
West Headnotes
[1] International Law 221
7
221 International Law
221k7 k. Extraterritorial rights and jurisdiction. Most
Cited Cases
As a general proposition, Congress has authority to
enforce its laws beyond the territorial boundaries of the
United States.
[2] International Law 221
7
221 International Law
221k7 k. Extraterritorial rights and jurisdiction. Most
Cited Cases
Although there is a presumption that Congress does
not intend a statute to apply to conduct outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, that presumption can be overcome when Congress expresses its intent to do so clearly.
[3] International Law 221
7
221 International Law
221k7 k. Extraterritorial rights and jurisdiction. Most
Cited Cases
As long as Congress has indicated its intent to
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 2
327 F.3d 56, 61 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 251
(Cite as: 327 F.3d 56)
reach by means of a statute conduct outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, a U.S. court is
bound to follow the Congressional direction unless this
would violate the due process clause of the Fifth
Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.
[4] International Law 221
7
foreign air commerce; statute was intended by Congress
to apply extraterritorially, and aircraft were all U.S.-flag
aircraft targeted while in flight, and thus were within
the special aircraft jurisdiction of the U.S., and all but
one of the targeted aircraft were civil aircraft carrying
passengers destined for the U.S. 18 U.S.C.A. § 32(a)(1,
2, 7).
221 International Law
221k7 k. Extraterritorial rights and jurisdiction. Most
Cited Cases
The presumption against extraterritorial application
of a United States statute does not apply to those criminal statutes which are, as a class, not logically dependent on their locality for the Government’s jurisdiction.
[7] Criminal Law 110
[5] International Law 221
Criminal Law 110
7
221 International Law
221k7 k. Extraterritorial rights and jurisdiction. Most
Cited Cases
In determining whether Congress intended a federal
statute to apply to overseas conduct, such a statute
ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations
if any other possible construction remains; nonetheless,
in fashioning the reach of criminal law, Congress is not
bound by international law and may, if it chooses, legislate with respect to conduct outside the United States, in
excess of the limits posed by international law.
[6] Criminal Law 110
18
110 Criminal Law
110I Nature and Elements of Crime
110k12 Statutory Provisions
110k18 k. Extraterritorial operation. Most
Cited Cases
Criminal Law 110
97(.5)
110 Criminal Law
110VIII Jurisdiction
110k91 Jurisdiction of Offense
110k97 Locality of Offense
110k97(.5) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
District court had extraterritorial jurisdiction over
defendants charged with attempts to bomb aircraft in
18
110 Criminal Law
110I Nature and Elements of Crime
110k12 Statutory Provisions
110k18 k. Extraterritorial operation. Most
Cited Cases
97(.5)
110 Criminal Law
110VIII Jurisdiction
110k91 Jurisdiction of Offense
110k97 Locality of Offense
110k97(.5) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
District court had extraterritorial jurisdiction over
substantive crimes of attempting to destroy aircraft by
placing bombs on them, and therefore had jurisdiction
over conspiracy charge relating to such attempts; statute
prohibiting attempts to damage or destroy aircraft within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the U.S. was intended by Congress to apply extraterritorially, aircraft were
all U.S.-flag aircraft targeted while in flight, and all but
one of the targeted aircraft were civil aircraft carrying
passengers destined for the U.S. 18 U.S.C.A. §§
32(a)(1, 2), 371.
[8] Criminal Law 110
98
110 Criminal Law
110VIII Jurisdiction
110k98 k. Jurisdiction of the person. Most Cited
Cases
Defendant was “found in” the United States, as required in his prosecution for conspiracy to place a bomb
on a civil aircraft registered in a foreign country, and
therefore district court had jurisdiction even though defendant had been brought to the U.S. against his will
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 3
327 F.3d 56, 61 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 251
(Cite as: 327 F.3d 56)
after being turned over to U.S. authorities by Pakistan;
defendant was brought to the U.S. on other charges and
so was already lawfully in federal custody when he was
charged with offenses relating to aircraft. 18 U.S.C.A. §
32(b)(3).
[9] International Law 221
385k11 k. Operation as to laws inconsistent with or
repugnant to treaty provisions. Most Cited Cases
Norms of customary international law can vitiate a
treaty’s effect only in the rare instance where the treaty
or a provision thereof violates one of the few so-called
peremptory norms of international law, or jus cogens.
1
[14] Criminal Law 110
221 International Law
221k1 k. Nature and authority in general. Most Cited
Cases
United States law is not subordinate to customary
international law or necessarily subordinate to treatybased international law and, in fact, may conflict with
both.
[10] International Law 221
2
221 International Law
221k2 k. Sources and scope. Most Cited Cases
Principles of customary international law consist of
the settled rules of international law as recognized
through the general assent of civilized nations.
[11] International Law 221
1
221 International Law
221k1 k. Nature and authority in general. Most Cited
Cases
Customary international law is part of the law of
the United States to the limited extent that where there
is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative
act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations.
[12] Treaties 385
7
385 Treaties
385k7 k. Construction and operation in general.
Most Cited Cases
Treaty law may provide a basis for a State’s action
independent of the principles of customary international
law.
[13] Treaties 385
385 Treaties
11
97(.5)
110 Criminal Law
110VIII Jurisdiction
110k91 Jurisdiction of Offense
110k97 Locality of Offense
110k97(.5) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
District court had jurisdiction over counts charging
defendant with attempting to destroy aircraft in foreign
commerce by placing bombs on them, which attempt
occurred outside the United States; U.S. domestic law
provided a complete basis for jurisdiction independent
of customary international law, each count involved a
plot to bomb U.S.-flag aircraft that would have been
carrying U.S. citizens, and purpose of attack was to influence U.S. foreign policy and to have an effect on and
within the U.S. 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 32(a)(1, 2), 371.
[15] Criminal Law 110
97(.5)
110 Criminal Law
110VIII Jurisdiction
110k91 Jurisdiction of Offense
110k97 Locality of Offense
110k97(.5) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
District court erred, in prosecution for conspiring
outside the United States to destroy aircraft in foreign
commerce by placing bombs on them, by partially
grounding its exercise of jurisdiction over count relating
to bombing of a civil aircraft registered in another country on universality principle; terrorism was not subject
to universal jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C.A. § 32.
[16] Criminal Law 110
97(.5)
110 Criminal Law
110VIII Jurisdiction
110k91 Jurisdiction of Offense
110k97 Locality of Offense
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 4
327 F.3d 56, 61 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 251
(Cite as: 327 F.3d 56)
110k97(.5) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
Treaties 385
8
385 Treaties
385k8 k. Construction and operation of particular
provisions. Most Cited Cases
District court had jurisdiction in prosecution of
count relating to bombing of a civil aircraft registered in
another country, even though aircraft was not a
U.S.-flag aircraft, was flying between two destinations
outside the U.S., and no U.S. citizens were targets of the
bombing; prosecution and conviction was consistent
with and required by U.S. treaty obligations, pursuant to
Montreal Convention and its implementing legislation.
18 U.S.C.A. § 32(b)(3); Suppression of Unlawful Acts
Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, Arts. 1, 7, 1973
WL 151803.
[17] Criminal Law 110
97(.5)
110 Criminal Law
110VIII Jurisdiction
110k91 Jurisdiction of Offense
110k97 Locality of Offense
110k97(.5) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
District court had jurisdiction, under “protective
principle” of international law, in prosecution of count
relating to bombing of a civil aircraft registered in another country, even though aircraft was not a U.S.-flag
aircraft, was flying between two destinations outside the
U.S., and no U.S. citizens were targets of the bombing;
crime was a test run for intended plot to influence U.S.
foreign policy by destroying U.S.-flag aircraft. 18
U.S.C.A. § 32(b)(3).
[18] Constitutional Law 92
4560
92 Constitutional Law
92XXVII Due Process
92XXVII(H) Criminal Law
92XXVII(H)4 Proceedings and Trial
92k4560 k. Extraterritorial application of
penal laws. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k259)
Criminal Law 110
110 Criminal Law
110VIII Jurisdiction
110k91 Jurisdiction of Offense
110k97 Locality of Offense
110k97(.5) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
Defendants’ conduct of plotting to place bombs on
board aircraft in foreign commerce was sufficiently related to U.S. interests that assertion of jurisdiction over
defendants did not violate Due Process Clause, even
though conduct occurred outside the U.S.; defendants
conspired to attack a dozen U.S.-flag aircraft in an effort to inflict injury on the U.S. and influence its foreign
policy, and attack on a foreign aircraft was a test run in
furtherance of the conspiracy. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5
.
[19] Constitutional Law 92
4523
92 Constitutional Law
92XXVII Due Process
92XXVII(H) Criminal Law
92XXVII(H)3 Law Enforcement
92k4521 Conduct of Police and Prosecutors in General
92k4523 k. Investigative activity in
general. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k268(5))
Constitutional Law 92
4594(6)
92 Constitutional Law
92XXVII Due Process
92XXVII(H) Criminal Law
92XXVII(H)4 Proceedings and Trial
92k4592 Disclosure and Discovery
92k4594 Evidence
92k4594(6) k. Duty to collect, find,
or obtain. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k268(5))
Criminal Law 110
1999
110 Criminal Law
110XXXI Counsel
110XXXI(D) Duties and Obligations of Prosecuting Attorneys
97(.5)
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 5
327 F.3d 56, 61 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 251
(Cite as: 327 F.3d 56)
110XXXI(D)2 Disclosure of Information
110k1993 Particular Types of Information
Subject to Disclosure
110k1999 k. Impeaching evidence.
Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 110k700(3))
Defendants were not deprived of due process, in
prosecution for plotting to place bombs on board aircraft in foreign commerce, by any alleged failure of
U.S. government to help them obtain cooperation from
Philippine authorities in defending themselves against
testimony of flight attendant who identified defendant
as bomber on Philippines Airlines flight which was
bombed in a test run; government provided defendants
with a list of other passengers on the flight, as well as
funds to send investigators. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.
[20] Constitutional Law 92
4594(3)
92 Constitutional Law
92XXVII Due Process
92XXVII(H) Criminal Law
92XXVII(H)4 Proceedings and Trial
92k4592 Disclosure and Discovery
92k4594 Evidence
92k4594(2) Particular Items or Information, Disclosure of
92k4594(3) k. In general. Most
Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k268(5))
Criminal Law 110
2000
110 Criminal Law
110XXXI Counsel
110XXXI(D) Duties and Obligations of Prosecuting Attorneys
110XXXI(D)2 Disclosure of Information
110k1993 Particular Types of Information
Subject to Disclosure
110k2000 k. Test results; demonstrative
and documentary evidence. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 110k700(3))
Defendants were not deprived of due process, in
prosecution for plotting to place bombs on board aircraft in foreign commerce, by any alleged inability to
obtain allegedly exculpatory videotape; defendants did
not use available procedural tools to try to obtain a copy
of the tape. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.
[21] Constitutional Law 92
4594(3)
92 Constitutional Law
92XXVII Due Process
92XXVII(H) Criminal Law
92XXVII(H)4 Proceedings and Trial
92k4592 Disclosure and Discovery
92k4594 Evidence
92k4594(2) Particular Items or Information, Disclosure of
92k4594(3) k. In general. Most
Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k268(5))
Criminal Law 110
2000
110 Criminal Law
110XXXI Counsel
110XXXI(D) Duties and Obligations of Prosecuting Attorneys
110XXXI(D)2 Disclosure of Information
110k1993 Particular Types of Information
Subject to Disclosure
110k2000 k. Test results; demonstrative
and documentary evidence. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 110k700(3))
In prosecution for plotting to place bombs on board
aircraft in foreign commerce, any error ascribable to defendant’s inability to obtain allegedly exculpatory hotel
videotape, of a person using name defendant was alleged to have used, was harmless, such that defendant
was not deprived of due process; police officer testified
that person on tape was not discernable and that security
guard who identified that person had seen that person
only from behind, and there was ample evidence that
defendant had been there and used that name. U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend. 5.
[22] Constitutional Law 92
92 Constitutional Law
92XXVII Due Process
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
4671
Page 6
327 F.3d 56, 61 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 251
(Cite as: 327 F.3d 56)
92XXVII(H) Criminal Law
92XXVII(H)5 Evidence and Witnesses
92k4671 k. Other particular kinds or items
of evidence. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k266(1))
pines, any testimony by officer as to what moviegoers
observed would have been inadmissible hearsay, and
overwhelming evidence existed to rebut any speculation
by officer that defendants were not involved in bombing. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.
Criminal Law 110
[24] Constitutional Law 92
429(1)
110 Criminal Law
110XVII Evidence
110XVII(P) Documentary Evidence
110k429 Public or Official Acts, Proceedings,
Records, and Certificates
110k429(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases
In prosecution for plotting to place bombs on board
aircraft in foreign commerce, exclusion of Philippine
police officer’s report on movie theater bombing did not
violate due process; report, which consisted of officer’s
deductions based on interviews with various victims,
was properly excluded as speculation and hearsay.
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.
[23] Constitutional Law 92
4677
92 Constitutional Law
92XXVII Due Process
92XXVII(H) Criminal Law
92XXVII(H)5 Evidence and Witnesses
92k4677 k. Right to present witnesses;
compulsory process. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k268(10))
Criminal Law 110
1170.5(1)
110 Criminal Law
110XXIV Review
110XXIV(Q) Harmless and Reversible Error
110k1170.5 Witnesses
110k1170.5(1) k. In general. Most Cited
Cases
In prosecution for plotting to place bombs on board
aircraft in foreign commerce, any error in defendant’s
inability to obtain testimony of Philippine police officer
who investigated movie theater bombing was harmless
and involved no denial of due process; defendant made
no effort to obtain the officer’s testimony in the Philip-
4601
92 Constitutional Law
92XXVII Due Process
92XXVII(H) Criminal Law
92XXVII(H)4 Proceedings and Trial
92k4598 Trial in General
92k4601 k. Course and conduct of trial
in general. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 92k268(3))
Criminal Law 110
649(2)
110 Criminal Law
110XX Trial
110XX(B) Course and Conduct of Trial in General
110k649 Adjournments Pending Trial
110k649(2) k. To procure witnesses or
evidence. Most Cited Cases
In prosecution for plotting to place bombs on board
aircraft in foreign commerce, denial of defendants’ request for adjournment, in order to obtain testimony of
Philippine judge for purpose of impeaching testimony
of two Philippine police officers, did not deprive defendants of due process; judge’s testimony would have
been cumulative, inasmuch as one officer had already
admitted in court that he provided false information to
judge. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5.
[25] Criminal Law 110
1152.1
110 Criminal Law
110XXIV Review
110XXIV(N) Discretion of Lower Court
110k1152 Conduct of Trial in General
110k1152.1 k. In general. Most Cited
Cases
(Formerly 110k1152(1))
A district court’s rulings regarding the conduct of a
© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 7
327 F.3d 56, 61 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 251
(Cite as: 327 F.3d 56)
trial will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of
discretion.
[26] Criminal Law 110
114
110 Criminal Law
110IX Venue
110IX(A) Place of Bringing Prosecution
110k114 k. Offenses committed beyond territorial limits of jurisdiction. Most Cited Cases
In prosecution for plotting to place bombs on board
aircraft in foreign commerce, venue was proper in the
Southern District of New York even though offenses
took place in the Philippines; offenses were committed
outside the jurisdiction of any State, and Southern District of New York was where defendant was first
brought on his return to the United States, and where he
was arrested on the aircraft bombing charges. 18
U.S.C.A. § 3238.
[27] Criminal Law 110
114
110 Criminal Law
110IX Venue
110IX(A) Place of Bringing Prosecution
110k114 k. Of …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYSHELP