Upload
mary-eng
View
225
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
1/256
No. 14-30217
____________________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MOHAMED OSMAN MOHAMUD,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Portland Division
____________________
OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANT
____________________
Stephen R. SadyChief Deputy Federal Public Defender
Lisa C. Hay
Federal Public Defender
Mark Ahlemeyer
Assistant Federal Public Defender
101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700
Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 326-2123
Steven Toby WaxAttorney at Law
630 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 500
Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 830-7758
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 1 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
2/256
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Authorities ............................................................................................... viii
Statement of Jurisdiction ............................................................................................ 1
Statement of Issues ..................................................................................................... 2
Statement of the Case ................................................................................................. 4
Nature of the Case ........................................................................................... 4
Course of Proceedings ..................................................................................... 4
Custody Status ...............................................................................................10
Statement of Facts ....................................................................................................11
Summary of Argument ............................................................................................56
Argument..................................................................................................................68
I. Under Controlling Supreme Court Authority, The Government’s
Extensive Intrusion Into And Influence Over The TeenagedDefendant’s Life Constituted Entrapment As A Matter Of Law AndViolated Due Process. ....................................................................................68
A. Under Jacobson, Religious And Political Beliefs, Even IfAlarming And Repugnant, Are Not Equivalent To PredispositionTo Commit The Crime Charged, Which Is Measured From TheTime Before The First Governmental Contact....................................70
B. Under Sherman, Governmental Sabotage Of RehabilitationEfforts And Exploitation Of Vulnerabilities Are Unlawful FormsOf Inducement. ....................................................................................74
C. Under Poehlman, Exploitation Of Apparent VulnerabilitiesWent Too Far In The Creation Of Crime. ...........................................76
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 2 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
3/256
ii
D. In The Alternative, The Court Should Dismiss This Case BasedOn Government Overreaching Under The Due Process Clause. ........78
II. The Prosecutor’s Closing Argument Violated Due Process By NegatingAnd Misstating The Legal Standard For The Defense Of Entrapment. ........81
A. The Government Argued In Closing That An Individual CannotBe Entrapped To Commit The Charged Offense. ...............................81
B. The Government Argued In Closing For Conviction Based OnPredisposition To Commit Similar Acts. ............................................84
C. The Improper Closing Arguments Violated The Defendant’sRight To Present A Complete Defense And Diluted TheGovernment’s Burden Of Proving Guilt Beyond a ReasonableDoubt. ..................................................................................................86
III. The Trial Court’s Failure To Provide Adequate Jury Instructions OnThe Defense Theory Of The Case Violated The Right To A Fair Trial. ......90
A. Despite Proffered Defense Instructions That Were Supported ByThe Facts And Law, The Trial Court Failed To Instruct The JuryOn Essential Aspects Of Entrapment That Supported TheDefense Case. ......................................................................................91
1. Predisposition To Commit The Specific Offense Charged....................................................................................................91
2. The Meaning Of “Innocent.” ....................................................92
3. “Wherewithal” Or “Capability” To Commit The ChargedCrime Without Government Assistance. ..................................94
4. Vulnerability To Inducement. ...................................................95
5. Evaluation Of Post-Contact Evidence Of Predisposition. ........96
6. The Government Agents’ State Of Mind. .................................98
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 3 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
4/256
iii
B. The Trial Court’s Response To The Jury’s Note CompoundedThe Prejudice From Incomplete Instruction On The EntrapmentDefense And Violated Due Process By Instructing On TheGovernment’s Theory While Continuing To Deprive The
Defense Of Its Theory. ......................................................................100
IV. The Trial Court’s Refusal To Instruct The Jury On The FirstAmendment, Combined With The Gag Order Barring The DefenseFrom Mentioning The First Amendment In Closing Argument,Violated The Constellation Of Constitutional Rights Guaranteeing ThePresentation Of A Complete Defense. .........................................................103
V. The Trial Court’s Refusal To Rule On The Constitutionality Of TheGovernment’s Non-FISA Seizures, Searches, and Interrogations
Violated Mr. Mohamud’s Constitutional Rights. ........................................107
A. The Trial Court Repeatedly Refused To Rule On TheConstitutionality Of Government Conduct. ......................................108
B. The Trial Court’s Refusal To Rule On Whether FBI AgentsActed Unconstitutionally Violated The Fourth Amendment, TheDue Process Clause, The Confrontation Clause, And The FifthAnd Sixth Amendment Rights To Present A Complete Defense. ....115
VI.
The Government And District Court’s Withholding Of ClassifiedEvidence And Information Impermissibly Skewed The Fact-FindingProcess, Violating Mr. Mohamud’s Rights To Confront His Accusers,Due Process Of Law, And Effective Assistance Of Counsel. .....................119
A. The Government Cannot Withhold Material Evidence Under TheState Secrets Privilege, CIPA, or FISA, When Doing So CurtailsFundamental Constitutional Rights In A Criminal Trial. .................120
B. Depriving Mr. Mohamud Of The True Identities Of The
Undercover Operatives Who Testified Against Him Violated HisRights To Confrontation, Due Process, And Effective AssistanceOf Counsel. ........................................................................................125
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 4 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
5/256
iv
1. The Government Asserted The State Secrets Privilege ToWithhold The Names And Backgrounds Of Its Operatives..................................................................................................126
2. Depriving The Defense Of The True Names Of Two KeyWitnesses Violated The Defendant’s ConstitutionalRights. .....................................................................................127
C. The District Court’s Denial Of Discovery Regarding, AndTestimony From, “Bill Smith” Violated The Fifth And Sixth
Amendment Rights To Compulsory Process, Confrontation, AndPresentation Of The Complete Theory Of The Defense. ..................133
D. The Government’s Selective Declassification Of Some Material
Obtained Through Electronic Surveillance And Other Means,While Withholding Other Such Material From The Defense,Violated The Right To A Fair Trial. .................................................136
E. The Failure To Allow Discovery Of Classified Brady MaterialAnd Its Replacement With Inadequate Substitute EvidenceViolated The Right To A Fair Trial. .................................................143
F. The Trial Court’s Refusal To Provide Classified MaterialRegarding Amro Al-Ali, Either Directly Or In Substitute Form,
Violated The Due Process Right To Receive Material In ThePossession Of The Government That Is Favorable To TheDefense. .............................................................................................147
VII. By Misconstruing And Misapplying The “State Of Mind” ExceptionTo The Hearsay Rule, The District Court Violated The ConfrontationClause, The Right To Compulsory Process, And The Right To A FairTrial. .............................................................................................................148
A. Over Defense Objection, The Court Construed the Hearsay Rule
To Allow The Government To Introduce Prejudicial HearsayEvidence Regarding A Key Figure, Amro Al-Ali, In ViolationOf Mr. Mohamud’s Right To Confrontation And To A Fair Trial............................................................................................................150
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 5 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
6/256
v
B. Once The Court Allowed Government Witnesses To TestifyRegarding Their Investigative “States Of Mind,” The Court
Erroneously Restricted Cross-Examination Related To MentalState, Including Motivation And Bias. ..............................................164
C.
Over Defense Objection, The Court Allowed GovernmentWitnesses To Testify About What Mr. Mohamud Meant AndWas Thinking About In Recorded Statements. .................................169
D. Over Defense Objection, The Court Misconstrued The HearsayRule To Exclude Admissible Evidence Of ContemporaneousCommunications By Mr. Mohamud That Reflected His Lack OfPredisposition To Commit The Crime Charged. ..............................171
E.
The Trial Court’s Repeated And Pervasive Errors MisconstruingAnd Misapplying The Evidentiary Rules For “State of Mind”
Evidence Require Reversal For Violation Of The Hearsay RuleAnd The Rights To Confrontation, Compulsory Process, And AFair Trial. ...........................................................................................172
VIII. Because The Government Violated The Statute Requiring Pretrial Notice Of Warrantless FISA Amendments Act Electronic Surveillance,The Government Should Have Been Barred From Using The ProductsOf Such Surveillance, Or, In The Alternative, The Case Should Be
Remanded For A Determination Of The Facts Based On Evidence AndAn Adversarial Hearing. ..............................................................................178
A. The Statutory Language Requires Pretrial Notice Of The Use OfEvidence Derived From FAA Warrantless Surveillance. .................180
B. Based On The Defense Evidence That The GovernmentIntentionally Or Recklessly Failed To Provide Pretrial Notice OfFAA Warrantless Surveillance, The Trial Court Should Have AtLeast Suppressed Derivative Evidence. ............................................183
C. In The Alternative, The Trial Court’s Refusal To Hold A HearingRegarding The Circumstances Of The Statutory AndConstitutional Violation Constituted Error Requiring Reversal
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 6 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
7/256
vi
And Remand For Fact Findings And Remedial ActionCommensurate With The Violation Of Rights..................................187
IX. The Warrantless Retention And Searches Of The Content Of Mr.Mohamud’s Electronic Communications Violated The FISAAmendments Act And The Constitution, Which Should Result InSuppression Of The Resulting Evidence. ....................................................190
A. The Search Of The Content Of Americans’ CommunicationsViolates The FAA Because The Statute Does Not ExpresslyAuthorize The Government To Retain And Later Access SuchElectronic Communications That Are “Incidentally” InterceptedWhile Targeting Foreigners. .............................................................192
B.
The Government’s Secondary Searches Of The Content Of AnAmerican Citizen’s Electronic Communications Violated TheConstitution Because The Intrusions Occurred Without JudicialReview And Other Protection Analogous To The FourthAmendment’s Warrant Requirement. ...............................................197
C. Acquisition And Retention Of Americans’ ElectronicCommunications Under The FAA Violates The First And FourthAmendment As Well As The Separation Of Powers Doctrine. ........201
D.
If The Present Record Is Insufficient To Find A Violation Of TheStatute Or Constitution, The Court Should AuthorizeSupplemental Briefing With Defense Access To The RelevantDocuments. ........................................................................................210
E. The Court Should Order Suppression Of Evidence And TheResult Of Decisions Derived From Electronic SurveillanceConducted In Violation Of The Statute And The Constitution. .......214
X. The District Court’s Handling Of Classified Materials Deprived Mr.
Mohamud Of Due Process Of Law And The Effective Assistance OfCounsel. .......................................................................................................216
XI. In The Alternative To Reversal And Remand For A New Trial, TheSentence Imposed In This Case Should Be Vacated Because The
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 7 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
8/256
vii
Government’s Recommendation Involved An Improper Basis AndBecause The Sentencing Involved Procedural Error. ..................................221
A. [Sealed Supplemental Opening Brief] ..............................................222
B.
The Court Should Vacate The Sentence Based On Inter-RelatedProcedural Errors Involving Failure To Adequately ResolveControverted Issues, Mischaracterization Of This Court’s LegalStandard Regarding The Terrorism Enhancement, AndInadequate Explanation Of Rulings Regarding Post-OffenseRehabilitation, Imperfect Entrapment, And FutureDangerousness. ..................................................................................222
Statement of Related Cases ....................................................................................231
Certificate of Compliance ......................................................................................232
Certificate of Service .............................................................................................233
INDEX TO APPENDIX
Appendix A: 50 U.S.C. § 1881a)
Appendix B: [sealed supplemental brief]
Appendix C: Index of Exhibits
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 8 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
9/256
viii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
FEDERAL COURT CASES
ACLU Found. of S. Cal. v. Barr,
952 F.2d 457 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ....................................................................215
ACLU v. Clapper,
No. 14-42-CV, 2015 WL 2097814 (2d Cir. May 7, 2015)................... passim
Alabama v. Bozeman,
533 U.S. 146 (2001)....................................................................................180
Alderman v. United States,394 U.S. 165 (1969)................................................................... 121, 199, 213
Alford v. United States,
282 U.S. 687 (1931)....................................................................................129
Anderson v. Yungkau,
329 U.S. 482 (1947)....................................................................................181
Arizona v. Hicks,
480 U.S. 321 (1987)....................................................................................198
Armstrong v. Asselin,734 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2013) ......................................................................202
Berger v. City of Seattle,569 F.3d 1029 (9th CIr. 2009) ........................................... 103, 108, 120, 179
Berger v. New York,388 U.S. 41 (1967)......................................................................................201
Berger v. United States,
295 U.S. 78 (1935)........................................................................................89
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 9 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
10/256
ix
Bollenbach v. United States,326 U.S. 607 (1946)....................................................................................101
Brady v. Maryland,373 U.S. 83 (1963)................................................................................ passim
Brandenburg v. Ohio,395 U.S. 444 (1969)......................................................................................72
Bruton v. United States,391 U.S. 123 (1968)....................................................................................176
California v. Green,399 U.S. 149 (1970)....................................................................................128
California v. Trombetta,467 U.S. 479 (1984)......................................................................................91
Camara v. Municipal Court,387 U.S. 523 (1967)....................................................................................206
Chandler v. United States Army,125 F.3d 1296 (9th Cir. 1997) ....................................................................181
Chapman v. California,386 U.S. 609 (1965)......................................................................................86
Clark v. Martinez,543 U.S. 371 (2005)....................................................................................122
Collins v. Gee West Seattle,631 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011) ....................................................................179
Comstock v. Humphries,
No. 14-15311, 2015 WL 2214647 (9th Cir. May 11, 2014) ......................187
Conde v. Henry,198 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 1999) ......................................................................106
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 10 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
11/256
x
Crane v. Kentucky,476 U.S. 683 (1986)....................................................................... 86, 91, 106
CT&IA v. FCC,330 F.3d 502 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ....................................................................212
Darden v. Wainwright,477 U.S. 168 (1986)......................................................................................81
Davis v. Alaska,415 U.S. 308 (1974)....................................................................................135
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo,416 U.S. 637 (1974)......................................................................................81
Doody v. Ryan,649 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2011) ......................................................................110
Ex parte Endo,323 U.S. 283 (1944)................................................................................... 196
Florida v. Jimeno,500 U.S. 248 (1991)........................................................................... 110, 198
Franks v. Delaware,438 U.S. 154 (1978)................................................................... 189, 218, 219
Gall v. United States,552 U.S. 38 (2007)............................................................. 223, 224, 227, 229
Gant v. Arizona,556 U.S. 332 (2009)....................................................................................204
Georgia v. Randolph,
547 U.S. 103 (2006)....................................................................................205
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,542 U.S. 507 (2004)....................................................................................196
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 11 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
12/256
xi
Hanna v. Price,245 Fed. Appx. 538 (6th Cir. 2007) .............................................................86
Herring v. New York,422 U.S. 853 (1975)....................................................................................106
Holmes v. South Carolina,547 U.S. 319 (2006)......................................................................................86
Illinois v. Krull,480 U.S. 340 (1987)....................................................................................215
In re Directives,551 F.3d 1004 (FISA Ct. Rev. 2008) ........................................................ 194
In re Grand Jury Subpoena (T-112),597 F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................185
In re Kevork,788 F.2d 566 (9th Cir. 1986) ..................................................................... 212
In re Sealed Cases,710 F.3d 717 (FISA Rev. Ct. 2002) ...........................................................206
Jackson v. Denno,378 U.S. 368 (1964)....................................................................................118
Jacobson v. United States,503 U.S. 540 (1992).............................................................................. passim
Jencks v. United States,353 U.S. 657 (1957)........................................................................... 121, 186
Jones v. United States,
357 U.S. 493 (1958)....................................................................................205
Klayman v. Obama,957 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013) ................................................................218
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 12 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
13/256
xii
Koon v. United States,518 U.S. 81 (1996)..................................................................... 222, 224, 226
Kyles v. Whitley,514 U.S. 419 (1995)....................................................................................118
Lawrence v. Texas,539 U.S. 558 (2003)....................................................................................203
Lilly v. Virginia,527 U.S. 116 (1999)....................................................................................128
Matthews v. Eldridge,424 U.S. 319 (1976)....................................................................................189
Merck & Co. v. Reynolds,130 S. Ct. 1784 (2010) ................................................................................121
Mistretta v. United States,488 U.S. 361 (1989)....................................................................................209
Morrison v. Olson,487 U.S. 654 (1988)....................................................................................209
Murray v. United States,487 U.S. 533 (1988)................................................................... 116, 182, 214
Ocampo v. Vail,649 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................. 174, 175
Pointer v. Texas,380 U.S. 400 (1975)....................................................................................127
Pollard v. Galaza,
290 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2002) ....................................................................111
Reynolds v. United States,345 U.S. 1 (1953) .........................................................................................120
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 13 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
14/256
xiii
Riley v. California,134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) ................................................................................192
Riley v. California,134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014) ...................................................................................66
Rita v. United States,551 U.S. 338 (2007)....................................................................................227
Rodriguez v. United States,135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) ................................................................................198
Roviaro v. United States,353 U.S. 53 (1957)............................................................................. 121, 186
Sandoval v. Calderon,241 F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................87
Segura v. United States,468 U.S. 796 (1984)....................................................................................200
Shepard v. United States,290 U.S. 96 (1933)......................................................................................176
Sherman v. United States,356 U.S. 369 (1958)................................................................... 69, 74, 75, 76
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States,251 U.S. 385 (1920)....................................................................................179
Smith v. Illinois,390 U.S. 129 (1968)....................................................................................128
Sorrells v. United States,
287 U.S. 435 (1932)......................................................................................72
Terry v. Ohio,392 U.S. 1 (1968)............................................................................... 197, 206
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 14 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
15/256
xiv
United Sates v. Kojayan,8 F.3d 1315 (9th Cir. 1993) ........................................................................188
United Staes v. Segna,555 F.2d 226 (9th Cir. 1977) ................................................................. 86, 88
United States v. Abel,469 U.S. 45 (1984)......................................................................................176
United States v. Alvarez,358 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................................................... 150
United States v. Bailleaux,685 F.2d 1105 (9th Cir. 1982) ....................................................................138
United States v. Bello-Bahena,411 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir.2005) .......................................................................90
United States v. Bin Laden,126 F.Supp.2d 264 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ..........................................................205
United States v. Bosse,898 F.2d 113 (9th Cir. 1990) ......................................................................110
United States v. Branson,756 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1985) ........................................................................89
United States v. Buckland,289 F.3d 558 ( 9th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................196
United States v. Carty,520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) ......................................................227
United States v. Celis,
608 F.3d 818 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ....................................................................130
United States v. Chapman,524 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2008) ........................................................... 187, 188
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 15 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
16/256
xv
United States v. Chun,503 F.2d 533 (9th Cir. 1974) ......................................................................182
United States v. Crist,627 F.Supp.2d 575 (M.D. Pa. 2012) ...........................................................198
United States v. Daoud,755 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2014) ......................................................................219
United States v. Dean,980 F.2d 1286 (9th Cir. 1992) ....................................................................174
United States v. Dumeisi,424 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2005) ......................................................................122
United States v. Duran-Orozco,192 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. 1277) ....................................................................116
United States v. El-Mazain,664 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2011) ......................................................................130
United States v. Faust,850 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1988) ......................................................................172
United States v. Fernandez-Angulo,897 F.2d 1514 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc) ....................................................224
United States v. Freeman,761 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1985) ............................................................. 104, 105
United States v. Frega,179 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999) ......................................................................101
United States v. Giordano,
416 U.S. 505 (1974)........................................................................... 181, 216
United States v. Henderson,241 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2000) ......................................................................134
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 16 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
17/256
xvi
United States v. Hernandez,608 F.2d 741 (9th Cir. 1979) ......................................................................129
United States v. Hernandez-Meza,720 F.3d 760 (9th Cir. 2013) ......................................................................188
United States v. Houston,217 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2000) ....................................................................223
United States v. Jayyousi,657 F.3d 1085 (11th Cir.2011) ...................................................................224
United States v. Johnson,459 F.3d 990 (9th Cir.2006) .........................................................................90
United States v. Kellington,217 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2000) ....................................................................107
United States v. Klimavicius-Viloria,144 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................... 122, 123, 124
United States v. Koon,34 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir. 1994) ........................................................................87
United States v. Lamberty,778 F.2d 59 (1st Cir. 1985) .........................................................................174
United States v. Larson,495 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir.2007) .....................................................................150
United States v. Leon-Reyes,177 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 1999) ........................................................................87
United States v. Lucas,
932 F.2d 1210 (8th Cir. 1991) ....................................................................131
United States v. Marguet-Pillado,648 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 90
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 17 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
18/256
xvii
United States v. May,622 F.2d 1000 (9th Cir. 1980) ........................................................... 163, 184
United States v. Mazzarella, No. 12-10171, 2015 WL 1769677 (9th Cir. Apr. 20, 2015) ..... 108, 116, 188
United States v. McClelland,72 F.3d 717 (9th Cir. 1995) ..........................................................................78
United States v. McCoy,23 F.3d 216 (9th Cir. 1994) ........................................................................177
United States v. Mejia,448 F.3d 436 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ........................................................... 122, 123
United States v. Miguel,338 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2003) ......................................................................107
United States v. Monaghan,741 F2d 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1984) .....................................................................87
United States v. Moussaoui,591 F.3d 263 (4th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................124
United States v. Mulder,808 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1987) ....................................................................198
United States v. Nixon,418 U.S. 683 (1974)........................................................................... 121, 213
United States v. Novak,918 F.2d 107 (10th Cir. 1990) ....................................................................174
United States v. O’Hara,
301 F.3d 563 (7th Cir. 2002) ......................................................................122
United States v. Ordonez,737 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1984) ......................................................................129
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 18 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
19/256
xviii
United States v. Ott,827 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1987) ......................................................................211
United States v. Palermo,410 F.2d 468 (7th Cir. 1969) ......................................................................131
United States v. Partyka,561 F.2d 118 (8th Cir. 1977) ......................................................................149
United States v. Pepper,131 S. Ct. 1229 (2011) ................................................................................222
United States v. Perlaza,439 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2006) ......................................................... 81, 87, 88
United States v. Pickard,236 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (D. Kan. 2002) ....................................................... 122
United States v. Poehlman,217 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................ passim
United States v. Ramos-Cruz,667 F.3d 487 (4th Cir. 2012) ......................................................................129
United States v. Rangel,534 F.2d 147 (9th Cir. 1976) ......................................................................129
United States v. Ressam,679 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................... 224, 228
United States v. Rice,478 F.3d 704 (6th Cir. 2007) ......................................................................216
United States v. Richardson,
583 F. Supp. 2d 694 (W.D. Pa. 2008) ........................................................110
United States v. Rothman,492 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1973) ....................................................................110
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 19 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
20/256
xix
United States v. Sallins,993 F.2d 344 (3d Cir. 1993) .......................................................................174
United States v. Sandoval-Gonzalez,642 F.3d 717 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................88
United States v. Sandoval-Mendoza,472 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2006) ........................................................................95
United States v. Santiago,46 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 1995) ..........................................................................81
United States v. Sarkissian,841 F.2d 959 (9th Cir. 1988) ..................................................... 121, 123, 124
United States v. Sedaghaty,728 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................ passim
United States v. Silva,380 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 2004) ....................................................................173
United States v. Simpson,927 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1991) ....................................................................187
United States v. Simtob,901 F.2d 799 (9th Cir. 1990) ........................................................................89
United States v. Smith,555 F.2d 249 (9th Cir. 1977) ......................................................................104
United States v. Song Ja Cha,597 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................199
United States v. Sterling,
724 F.3d 482 (4th Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 129
United States v. Straub,538 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1991). .......................................................... 136, 137
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 20 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
21/256
xx
United States v. Thickstun,110 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997) ......................................................................94
United States v. Trujillo,713 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................223
United States v. Truong,629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980) ......................................................................205
United States v. United States District Court for the E. District of Michigan,407 U.S. 297 (1972)........................................................... 194, 199, 202, 203
United States v. Warshak,631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................199
United States v. Weatherspoon,410 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005) ......................................................................88
United States v. Winsor,846 F.3d 1569 (9th Cir. 1988) (en banc) ....................................................207
United States v. Yarbrough,852 F.2d 1522 (9th Cir.1988) .......................................................................88
United States v. Young,470 U.S. 1 (1985)..........................................................................................89
United States v. Young,573 F.3d 711 (9th Cir. 2009) ......................................................................198
United States v. Yunis,867 F.3d 617 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ....................................................................123
Warden v. Hayden,
387 U.S. 294 (1967)....................................................................................197
Wardius v. Oregon,412 U.S. 470 (1973)................................................................... 102, 136, 137
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 21 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
22/256
xxi
Zadvydas v. Davis,533 U.S. 678 (2001)........................................................................... 122, 196
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily,436 U.S. 547 (1978)....................................................................................202
Zweibon v. Mitchell,516 F.2d 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975) ....................................................................206
FEDERAL STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
18 U.S.C. § 2332a(a)(2) .......................................................................................4, 72
18 U.S.C. § 3231 ........................................................................................................ 1
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) ...............................................................................................223
18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) ................................................................................................... 1
28 U.S.C. § 1291 ........................................................................................................ 1
28 U.S.C. § 2106 ....................................................................................................210
50 U.S.C. § 1802(a)(1)(B) .....................................................................................205
50 U.S.C. § 1805(a)(2) .................................................................................. 193, 219
50 U.S.C. § 1805(a)(4) ...........................................................................................193
50 U.S.C. § 1806(c) ...................................................................... 178, 180, 181, 183
50 U.S.C. § 1806(f) ............................................................... 119, 121, 210, 211, 212
50 U.S.C. § 1806(g) .............................................................................. 182, 214, 215
50 U.S.C. § 1881a ............................................................................................ passim
50 U.S.C. § 1881e(a) ..............................................................................................180
150 U.S.C. § 1806(g) .............................................................................................215
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 22 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
23/256
xxii
FEDERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
28 C.F.R. § 50.2 .......................................................................................................80
75 Fed. Reg. 707 (Dec. 29, 2009) .........................................................................137
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1) .......................................................................................124
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) .......................................................................... 224, 227
Fed. R. Evid.801 ....................................................................................................173
Fed. R. Evid.802 ....................................................................................................172
Fed. R. Evid.803(3) ............................................................................... 148, 172, 173
Fed. R. Evid.803(8) ................................................................................................152
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 23 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
24/256
1
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The District Court’s jurisdiction over the underlying criminal prosecution was
conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3231. This Court has jurisdiction over the direct appeal of
the conviction and sentence imposed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. This appeal is timely filed pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure because the District Court entered judgment on October 6,
2014, and Mr. Mohamud filed his notice of appeal on October 14, 2014.
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 24 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
25/256
2
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. Under controlling Supreme Court authority, did the government’s extensiveintrusion into and influence over the teenaged defendant’s life constituteentrapment as a matter of law and violate due process?
II. Did the prosecutor ’s closing argument violate due process by negating andmisstating the legal standard for the defense of entrapment?
III. Did the trial court’s failure to provide adequate jury instructions on the theoryof the defense violate the defendant’s right to a fair trial?
IV. Did the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the First Amendment,combined with the gag order barring the defense from mentioning the FirstAmendment in closing argument, violate the constellation of constitutionalrights guaranteeing the presentation of a complete defense?
V. Did the trial court’s refusal to rule on the constitutionality of the government’snon-FISA seizures, searches, and interrogations violate the FourthAmendment, the right to confrontation, and the right to present a completedefense?
VI. Did the government and district court’s withholding of classified evidence andinformation impermissibly skew the fact-finding process, violating Mr.
Mohamud’s rights to confront his accusers, due process of law, and effectiveassistance of counsel?
VII. By misconstruing and misapplying the “state of mind” exception to thehearsay rule, did the district court violate the confrontation clause, the right tocompulsory process, and the right to a fair trial?
VIII. Because the government violated the statute requiring pretrial notice ofwarrantless FISA Amendments Act electronic surveillance, should thegovernment have been barred from using the products of such surveillance or,
in the alternative, should the case be remanded for a determination of the facts based on evidence and an adversarial hearing?
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 25 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
26/256
3
IX. Did the warrantless retention and searches of the content of Mr. Mohamud’selectronic communications violate the FISA Amendments Act and theConstitution, requiring suppression of the resulting evidence?
X. Did the district court’s handling of classified materials deprive Mr. Mohamudof due process of law and the effective assistance of counsel?
XI. In the alternative to reversal and remand for a new trial, should the sentenceimposed in this case be vacated because the government’s recommendationinvolved an improper basis and because the sentencing involved proceduralerrors?
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 26 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
27/256
4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the Case
This is the direct appeal from Mohamed Mohamud’s conviction after jury trial
for attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2332a(a)(2)(A), followed by imposition of a 30-year sentence by the Honorable Garr
M. King, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon.
Course of Proceedings
This case has stretched out for over four years with hundreds of documents
filed and thousands of transcript pages. The case proceeded through pretrial motions
regarding classified material, suppression of evidence, and discovery between the
first appearance on November 29, 2010, until the beginning of the three-week trial
of an entrapment defense on January10, 2013. After the guilty verdict, the initial
sentencing date was continued several times at government request until November
19, 2013, when the government filed a post-trial supplemental notice regarding
warrantless FISA Amendments Act (FAA) electronic surveillance. After the trial
court denied motions related to the FAA notice on June 24, 2014, the trial court
received sentencing materials and held a sentencing hearing, then entered judgment
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 27 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
28/256
5
on October 6, 2014. The defense filed a timely notice of appeal on October 14, 2014.
I:236.1
After the initial arrest and filings, the proceedings before the district court are
summarized below within the context of the issues raised on appeal. The trial court’s
rulings are the first volume of the Excerpts of Record and the documents and
transcripts related to each issue are gathered in the volumes that follow.
Initial Arrest And Filings: The government arrested Mr. Mohamud on the evening
of Friday, November 26, 2010, and released to the public a press statement and the
36-page criminal complaint that was filed on November 29, 2010. II:237-73, 278.
At the first appearance, Mr. Mohamud was arraigned on a one-count indictment and
detained pending trial. I:1; II:274. The government also filed a notice regarding the
use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), but not use of FAA
surveillance. III:410-11.
The defense filed a motion on December 20, 2010, requesting that the trial
judge enter an order that the government stop making pretrial comments regarding
the merits of the case. After further briefing by the parties (II:302-77), the trial judge
1 References to the Excerpts of Record are by volume number and page.“SER” refers to the Sealed Excerpts of Record. “Tr.” refers to the trial transcripts,which are numbered with the original pagination in separate volumes of the Excerptsof Record.
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 28 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
29/256
6
entered an opinion and order finding that, on three occasions, the government
violated regulations that bar government attorneys from certain types of pretrial
comment to the press, but denying the defense motion (II:385-87).
I. Entrapment as a matter of law: In the trial memorandum, the defense set
out the grounds for acquittal based on entrapment as a matter of law or, in the
alternative, dismissal for violation of due process. VI:1966-74, 2074-88. The motion
was denied at the close of the government’s case. I:124-26. The defense filed a post-
trial motion for acquittal, which was denied. VI:2848-51, 2872-81; I:132-38.
II. Prosecution closing argument: During the prosecutor ’s closing argument,
the defense objected and was overruled, Tr. 2574-75, then reraised the issue in the
post-trial motion for a new trial, which was denied. VI:2856-57, 2885-87, 2903-04;
I:131, 142-44.
III. Theory of defense instructions: The defense submitted jury instructions on
the theory of defense and briefed the grounds for providing the instructions prior to
trial. VI:2043-44, 2097-99, 2169-70, 2211-17. The trial judge rejected the
instructions and overruled objections to the instruction the court gave. VI:2425-32;
Tr. 2421. Before the court responded to a juror ’s note, the defense objected, then
moved for a mistrial (VI:2787-90), then a new trial (VI:2853-56, 2883-85, 2901-03).
The court denied the motion. I:138-42.
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 29 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
30/256
7
IV. First Amendment jury instruction and gag order: The defense submitted
a jury instruction on the First Amendment and briefed its relevance prior to trial.
VI:2041, 2099-100, 2217-18. During the hearing on instructions, the trial court ruled
against the instruction and barred mention of the First Amendment (VI:2373-79),
which was also raised and denied in the post-trial motion for a new trial (VI:2870-
71, 2897-99; I:159-61).
V. Non-FISA seizures, searches, and interrogation: The defense filed a
pretrial motion to suppress for violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in
connection with non-FISA seizure and search of the defendant’s personal computer
and federal involvement in an interrogation. IV:595-634. Over objection, the trial
court indicated it would only address the question of independent source without
first determining the constitutional violation. IV:635-46. The defense also raised the
need for a ruling on whether constitutional violations occurred in the context of the
need for a ruling as a trial fact and as a fact predicate to the motion to dismiss for
violation of due process. VI:2011-13, 2118-19. After the post-trial notice of
warrantless electronic surveillance, the defense renewed the request for a ruling
necessary for an assessment of the testimony regarding the reckless or intentional
failure to provide pretrial notice and the independent source question. VII:3172-73.
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 30 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
31/256
8
The trial court denied all motions for a ruling on the constitutionality of the non-
FISA investigations. I:2, 67-90, 180-82; SER 1-3.
VI. Withholding of classified evidence: During pretrial proceedings, the defense
objected to the failure to provide the names of and other information regarding
undercover operatives, the selective declassification of helpful information in
electronic communications, information regarding Al-Ali; and the adequacy of
substitute evidence required under Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and
provided through the Classified Information Protection Act (CIPA). V:1300-83,
1460-1537, 1631-50, 1660, 1672-92, 1716-32, 1743, 1752-76, 1779-93; SER 4-69,
173-92. The issues were also raised through the post-trial motions for a new trial.
VI:2861-65, 2868-70, 2892-94, 2896-97. The trial court denied access to classified
evidence. I:44-66, 91-99, 122-24, 127, 152-54, 158-59, 180-82; SER 272-74.
VII. Violation of hearsay and confrontation rights through “state of mind”
testimony: In its pretrial submissions, the defense objected to and moved to exclude
potential hearsay. VI:2145-48, 2291-97, 2347-48, 2458-60, 2483-86. The defense
objected to the trial court’s interpretation and application of evidentiary rules related
to state of mind during trial as set out in Section VII. The issues were also raised in
the post-trial motions for a new trial. VI:2857-59, 2865-68, 2887-89, 2894-96. The
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 31 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
32/256
9
trial court ruled against the defendant’s objections. I:114-16, 120-21, 128-30, 144-
46, 156-58.
VIII. Violation of pretrial FAA notice requirement: The defense filed a post-trial
motion to dismiss or suppress evidence based on violation of the statute requiring
pretrial notice of the use of evidence derived from the FAA. VII:3083-102, 3176-
93, 3312-25. After a hearing, the trial court issued an opinion denying relief. I:175-
80.
IX. Suppression based on unconstitutional warrantless surveillance under
the FAA: The defense filed post-trial motions for access to classified material and
to suppress based on the unconstitutionality of both the secondary searches and the
overall program for warrantless electronic surveillance. VII:2910-3082, 3103-66,
3203-303, 3330-401. After a hearing, the trial court issued an opinion denying
discovery and relief on the merits. I:162-227.
X. Classified material review: The defense filed motions and objections pretrial
and at trial regarding the district court’s refusal to provide security-cleared counsel
access to documents. I:48; III:448-49; 479-81, 517; IV:631-32; V:1306, 1342, 1639,
1676, 1690, 1729-32; SER 4-6, 45-69, 181-92, 249-54. The filings and objections
specified under seal and sometimes ex parte, why classified material should be
reviewed and produced, either in its entirety or under alternative means of
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 32 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
33/256
10
production under the Classified Information Protection Act (CIPA). The trial court
denied access to classified material. I:3-23, 25-40, 127, 154-56.
XI. Sentencing violations of due process and procedural rules: The parties
filed public sentencing briefs and presented oral argument at sentencing. VIII:3456-
599, 3606-93. The presentence report also included specific defense objections to
the draft report. SER 381-460. The parties also submitted sealed material (SER 358-
69, 373-80), and the court held a brief sealed proceeding before the public sentencing
hearing (SER 461-73; VIII:3634-93). The trial court provided a statement at
sentencing and a non-public statement of reasons. I:228-35; SER 474.
Custody Status
Mr. Mohamud is serving the 30-year sentence imposed in this case at FCI
Victorville with a projected release date of January 26, 2037.
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 33 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
34/256
11
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Introduction and Overview
On November 26, 2010, a 19-year-old United States citizen, Mohamed
Mohamud, committed a horrific act: he attempted to detonate a weapon of mass
destruction at the Christmas tree lighting ceremony at Portland’s Pioneer Courthouse
Square. He pushed the buttons of a cellphone, twice, believing they would cause the
explosion of a massive, nail-filled bomb capable of eliminating at least two city
blocks. At trial, the government played a video of children and families gathered at
Pioneer Square for the tree-lighting, making vivid the calamity that would have
ensued if the bomb had been real. Tr. 1943; Ex. 240-1, 240-2. The bomb was a fake,
created by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as the culmination of a sting
operation they had started over a year earlier.
The defense at trial was entrapment: that the government had induced this
teenager to attempt a crime he was not predisposed to commit. Tr. 283. Before
contact with the undercover FBI agents, there was no evidence that Mohamed had
ever researched how to build a bomb, had ever expressed an interest in detonating a
bomb in the United States, and did not, as the FBI conceded, have any knowledge
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 34 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
35/256
12
of explosives or the wherewithal to build a bomb. Tr. 483-84, 955.2 The FBI attention
and surveillance in Portland came after his father reached out to the FBI for help in
preventing his son from going overseas. Tr. 1434-39. Almost a year into the FBI
surveillance, and after initiating in-person undercover contact, the FBI opined in an
August 2010 assessment that Mohamed “would not make any attempts to conduct a
terrorist attack without specific direction from the [FBI undercover agents].” Tr.
1675.
The trial testimony revealed that many of the details of the horrific event had
been created by the FBI and then presented to Mohamed as the plan. Two undercover
FBI operatives, known to the defense only as “Hussein” and “Youssef,” directed
many of Mohamed’s actions. Tr. 673-79. The “ bomb” itself was designed entirely
by the FBI. Tr. 1048-49. None of the so-called “ bomb” parts that Mohamed
purchased, at the direction of the FBI, were illegal or dangerous. Tr. 1297. The FBI
chose the size of the bomb (six barrels); the size of the truck, and the size of the
explosion. Tr. 1049. Mohamed had no part in constructing the bomb and did not
2 As the government acknowledged in closing regarding the bomb, “There’s been no suggestion by the Government that the defendant could have done that. None at all.” Tr. 2591.
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 35 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
36/256
13
know how large the explosion would be. Tr. 1049. And the FBI added the detail of
putting nails in the bomb. Tr. 1065.
The defense and government presented two widely differing theories to the
jury on how Mohamed came to the point, on November 26, 2010, of eagerly
attempting to detonate the bomb. According to the government, before Mohamed
ever came in contact with government agents, he had a “committed, well-developed
ideology” that supported the use of violence in the West, Tr. 2545-47, and he sought
out and was knowingly in contact with al-Qaeda terrorists, Tr. 257, 2544. The
government described in its opening statement the evidence it expected to present:
The Government is going to prove to you what the defendant’s mind-set was before the intervention of the FBI by providing you evidence,evidence of things like the defendant’s writings that clearly state hissupport for violence in the United States and outside the United States.We’re going to provide you evidence of his relationships with knownIslamic terrorists, known al-Qaeda terrorists. And, most importantly,we’re going to provide you evidence of the defendant’s own recordedstatements, statements that describe his intent and justification forcommitting violent acts against non-Muslims, nonbelievers.
Tr. 257-58. In closing, the government argued it had proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that Mohamed was predisposed to commit this crime and was not induced by
the agents. Tr. 2539-40.
The defense, on the other hand, presented evidence that, while Mohamed, as
a 17-year-old, had concededly written inflammatory articles and was influenced by
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 36 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
37/256
14
and enamored of jihadi websites, he was a young man going through an identity
crisis with shifting interests. He had never suggested bringing violence to the United
States; he was not violent himself; and he had moved away from his radical ideas
and was attending college and making plans for future employment, including a
summer of work in Alaska. At most, what Mohamed had longed to do before
enrolling in college was to go overseas, to join his friends in a Muslim country, to
study, and to give unspecified support to the “ brothers” overseas.
Only after November 9, 2009, when the FBI began sending him emails
encouraging violent action in the West; later thwarted his plans to travel; then sent a
mysterious, charismatic older man (“Youssef ”) to mentor him, flatter him, and urge
him to choose action in the United States, did Mohamed express a willingness to
commit an act of domestic terrorism. The FBI then, during the three months after
Mohamed first agreed to detonate a bomb, took actions to make sure he “stay[ed] on
course and follow[ed] the plan he came up with.” Tr. 778. In short, the defense
argued that the government, in its zeal to protect against terrorists, had in fact used
al-Qaeda-like tactics to manipulate a confused young man and to cause him to
participate in an attempted act of domestic terrorism.
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 37 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
38/256
15
1. Mohamed’s Background And Upbringing
Mohamed Osman Mohamud was born in war-torn and impoverished Somalia,
on August 11, 1991. Tr. 2131-32, 2145, 2299. His father, Osman Mohamed Barre,
emigrated to the United States as a refuge in 1993, and Mohamed and his mother
followed about a year later. Tr. 2132-33, Although “malnourished” and “suffering,”
mother and son were “happy” to have arrived in the United States. Tr. 2133. The
family was “grateful to America” for taking them in, and the parents worked hard to
create a new life for their family, which would eventually expand to include a
daughter (Muna) and another son (Younis). Tr. 2133-34, 2141. As his father would
tell the FBI during later questioning, “We’re proud to be American.” Tr. 2149.
Reports about Mohamed from the time of his arrival in the United States until
his early teen years showed nothing out of the ordinary for an immigrant youngster.
See, e.g., Tr. 2136, 2277-78. He read Harry Potter books, attended local public
schools, and quickly learned English. Tr. 2136. He was a Lakers fan. Tr. 2136. He
had a diverse group of friends and was well liked by his peers. Tr. 2144-45, 2285.
His family attended the local mosque, where they socialized with others in the
Muslim community. Tr. 2137. During his sophomore year in high school, Mohamed
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 38 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
39/256
16
won an award for a poem he wrote about the reasons he loved Oregon. Id .3 Childhood
friends and former teachers testified at trial that Mohamed was “goofy,” “fun-
loving,” “very friendly,” and “a great kid.” Tr. 2277-79, 2288, 2291.
As a young teenager, Mohamed began to experience what his father described
as an ordinary, teenage “identity crisis.” Tr. 2136.4 He had questions about his
religion and his culture. Id . Although his father did not know it, Mohamed began
searching to understand his religion on the internet. Tr. 713, 2157. He came in
contact with extremist websites, and through those websites, he became very
familiar with the extremist language of the pro-jihadi internet community. Tr. 714.
2. Association With Amro Al-Ali
Through the local mosque in Portland, Mohamed became acquainted with
Amro Al-Ali, an 18-year-old college student from Saudi Arabia, who came to
Portland in January of 2008 to study. Tr. 426-27, 2137. Al-Ali had a valid student
visa and flew into and out of the United States without incident. Tr. 426-27. Al-Ali
3 Defense Exhibit 1007B is a video of the young Mohamed reciting his poem.
4
“[L]ike every immigrant kid, he was going through an identity crisis. Whyare we here? Why do we speak different language? Why do women wear differentthings? Many kids, when we immigrate to this country, they go through what we callan identity crisis. They have to relate to two different cultures, two different beliefs,and they have to fit that.” Tr. 2136.
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 39 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
40/256
17
left Portland on June 28, 2008. Tr. 428. He had not been arrested or designated or
charged with any terrorism-related activity at the time he left, and the government
presented no evidence at trial of any terrorist writings, statements, or activities of
Al-Ali in the United States. Tr. 437.
Mohamed maintained sporadic email contact with Al-Ali after he left Oregon,
at least some of which the government collected. Ex. 224. No emails refer to
terrorism or al-Qaeda. Ex. 224. Instead, the emails cover religious subjects and
include information from Al-Ali about an Islamic school, Dar ul-Hadith, in Yemen.
Tr. 2027-28. A government expert testified that this school was founded by a Muslim
cleric who was an avid supporter of violent jihad, and that the school had a reputation
as a location where individuals could contact violent jihadis. Id . None of this
information is stated in the email, however, and the government presented no
evidence that Mohamed knew of it. In August 2009, Mohamed told his father about
Al-Ali and the school in Yemen and expressed a desire to go there. Tr. 2146-54.
The government presented evidence, based on an IP address, that emails
attributed to Amro Al-Ali came from Pakistan. Tr. 341-42. Mohamed’s statements
during the recorded undercover proceedings indicated he believed Al-Ali was in
Yemen and had been there for a year. Tr. 1110-11.
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 40 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
41/256
18
Before trial, the government characterized Al-Ali as “key” to its case against
Mohamed. Tr. 2352. In its opening statement, the government referred to Al-Ali as
an “al-Qaeda recruiter ” and presented him as one of the “known al-Qaeda terrorists”
connected to Mohamed that demonstrated Mohamed’s predisposition to commit this
offense. Tr. 258, 262. Over defense objection, numerous government witnesses
characterized Al-Ali as a “terrorist” or referred to an Interpol notice that allegedly
confirmed Al-Ali to be an al-Qaeda recruiter. Tr. 334, 539, 1317, 1605. The
contested trial proceedings regarding Al-Ali, including the trial court’s limits on the
substantive use of testimony regarding him, are set out in full in Section VII.
3. Trip To London
In December 2008, Mohamed and his family traveled to London for a family
funeral. Tr. 2138-39. At the airport, Mohamed was stopped and questioned by
security. Tr. 2138. He later wrote in an email to his friends how angry he was about
the perceived racial profiling at the airport and blamed the “evil Zionist-crusader
lobbyists who control the world.” Tr. 1578. He called on Allah to bring his fighters
against these unbelievers. Tr. 1578. While in London, Mohamed established a new
email account, [email protected], which he used when corresponding
with Al-Ali and others he met online. Tr. 1580, 1594.
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 41 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
42/256
19
4. On-Line Contact With Samir Khan
One of the on-line contacts Mohamed made in 2009 was with Samir Khan, an
American citizen living in North Carolina. Tr. 354-55. Mr. Khan openly
administered an extremist jihadi website and published an on-line magazine, Jihad
Recollections. Tr. 355. From February into August 2009, Mohamed, then 17 years
old, exchanged over 150 emails with Mr. Khan. Tr. 403-04; Ex. 223. He assumed a
false, on-line persona in his emails, pretending to be a college student (he was a high
school senior) and claiming to work making magazines. Tr. 407. He sought advice
about personal relationships with his family and friends, and about Islamic law. Tr.
405, 409. At Mr. Khan’s suggestion, Mohamed chose a pen name to use for future
writing: Ibn al-Mubarak, a noted poet. Tr. 404.
Mohamed wrote four articles for Jihad Recollections between February and
June 2009. Ex. 232. The articles provided advice on staying in shape without weights
in order to prepare for jihad and on staying mentally fit for the frontier; praised As-
Sahab media as an outlet for al-Qaeda; and analyzed Europe’s potential vulnerability
to a jihadi attack. Tr. 423-25, 1598, 2252. Each was pro-jihadi, and several had
highly inflammatory content that Mr. Khan removed before publishing. Tr. 1585-
86, 1593-94. For example, Mohamed suggested including pictures of the twin towers
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 42 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
43/256
20
in flames in one article, and, in another, he praised overseas al-Qaeda fighters who
shot down an American helicopter, then “finished off ” the soldiers. Tr. 1586-94.
In addition to writing his own articles, Mohamed took an active role in editing
articles written by others and suggesting content. He approved the “stance” of Jihad
Recollections as supporting Osama Bin Laden, and described the magazine in an
email as “officially an American al-Qaeda magazine, laugh out loud.” Tr. 1592. He
sent emails expressing eagerness for the next issue. Tr. 424. But then, on August 15,
2009, he emailed Mr. Khan that he would not write for the up-coming edition as
previously planned, and that he “was going through a lot of things.” Tr. 425. That
was the last communication of any type between Mohamed – who had just turned
18 years old – and Mr. Khan. Tr. 425.
During the trial, the government referred repeatedly to Samir Khan as a
“terrorist” and described Mohamed as being in contact with this “terrorist.” Tr. 257,
260, 263, 1443, 1540, 2377, 2544. Yet during this entire period of their
communication, Mr. Khan was living openly in the United States and the
government presented no evidence that he had been accused of any terrorist
activities. Tr. 440-41. Instead, Mr. Khan exercised his First Amendment right to
publish controversial and hateful political expressions. Tr. 415-16 (Jihad
Recollections “shouldn’t push the limits of what’s permissible”).
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 43 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
44/256
21
Mr. Khan flew out of the United States, apparently not on any No-Fly list,
sometime after Mohamed ceased communicating with him. Tr. 440-41. According
to testimony at the trial, he later joined a Yemeni-based terrorist organization, Al-
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and became a key media propagandist for
them. Tr. 2020-21. About a year after Mohamed’s arrest, Mr. Khan was killed by an
American drone strike that was targeting another AQAP member. Id . The
government presented no evidence that Mohamed was in contact with Samir Khan
after his last email in August 2009.
5. Other On-Line Contacts
Mohamed also sometimes wrote posts on the web-site “Dawn of the Ummah
(DWTU)” and other similar internet sites. Tr. 2102-05. A government expert
characterized this forum as one that supported violent jihad. Tr. 2105. In June of
2009, Mohamed wrote that he was working on a project to publish the names of all
the Danish cartoonists and others who had “offended Allah.” Tr. 2109. The list was
intended to be like the FBI most wanted list; he wrote, “I’ll put a disclaimer on it,
but anyone can do with it whatever they please.” Tr. 2110-12. The government
expert testified at trial that posting on such web forums was indicative of a person
trying to “self-recruit,” Tr. 2097, while the defense expert testified that such vitriol
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 44 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
45/256
22
was common “nasty trash talk ” being done by many on Islamic websites and was
not an indication that someone would turn to violence. Tr. 2434.
6.
August 31, 2009: His Father Calls The FBI When Mohamed Plans To
Leave The U.S.
On the same day that Al-Ali sent Mohamed the email with the information
about the religious school, Mohamed called his father, Osman Barre, to say he was
leaving the country. Tr. 2146. Mr. Barre felt his son was “too young and immature”
and asked him to wait. When Mr. Barre and his wife discovered that Mohamed had
taken his passport, they panicked. Tr. 2305-06. The Barres had heard stories about
Somali youth being “ brainwashed,” returning to Somalia, and dying in the fighting
there. Tr. 2306, 2147. When they could not reach Mohamed on his phone, Mr. Barre
turned to the phone directory and called the FBI, asking whether they could help him
stop his son from leaving the country. Id . The FBI asked to meet with Mr. Barre.
In the meantime, Mrs. Barre made contact with Mohamed, picked him up at
a local school playground, scolded him, and brought him home. Tr. 2306-08. He did
not have a ticket or visa, and turned his passport over to his parents. Tr. 2148.
Mr. Barre met with Special Agent DeLong of the FBI, as agreed. Tr. 2148-49.
When the agent explained he was from the Joint Terrorism Task Force, Mr. Barre
was taken aback and expressed that his family had nothing to hide and were nothing
but grateful to America for taking in the family when they had nowhere else to go.
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 45 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
46/256
23
Tr. 2149-50. Mr. Barre provided information about Mohamed, and he later
forwarded to SA DeLong the email from Mohamed about the school in Yemen. Tr.
2150, 2153. Mr. Barre did not know that Mohamed had altered the email, removing
Al-Ali’s email address and forwarding it away from his own truthbespoken email
account. Tr. 1603-04. The email provided by Mohamed’s father gave the Portland
FBI a link to tie Mohamed to an on-going FBI investigation of Samir Khan. Tr.
1438-39.
SA DeLong told Mr. Barre, “[t]here’s nothing we can do” to stop Mohamed
from going abroad, given that Mohamed was an adult. Tr. 2151; 1435. Mr. Barre
responded that Mohamed “might be an adult, but he’s still a child and immature.”
Tr. 2151.5 The FBI did not impart any of the information they knew to the Barres
about Mohamed’s earlier online contacts with extremists. Tr. 1439. At trial, Mr.
Barre expressed frustration with this withholding of information and stated that, if
he had been told, he would have contacted counselors and elders in the Muslim and
Somali communities who could have reached out and steered Mohamed away from
the extremist mentality. Tr. 2155.
5 An FBI source at a local mosque later confirmed this view of Mohamed,telling them he was “looking for evidence” and “easily influenced.” Tr. 399.
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 46 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
47/256
24
That night, Mr. and Mrs. Barre sat down with Mohamed. Tr. 2151. Mohamed
said his actions were just talk and “it’s a fluke” and that he “was not going
anywhere.” Tr. 2151. Mohamed said he had thought about going to school in Yemen
to learn Arabic and about Islam, and that he had heard about it from a college kid
named Amro he had met at the local mosque. Tr. 2151-53. Mr. Barre expressed the
following to Mohamed:
I left my home country because of violence. I brought you here to giveyou a life of prosperity, and we are here, and you are going to be here
with us and go to college, and we were going to support you to do that.
Tr. 2152. Mr. Barre told Mohamed that if he wanted to go abroad to learn Arabic
and about Islam, he could do so with the family’s support after he finished school in
the United States and was “mature enough” to “know wrong or right.” Tr. 2154. The
family agreed to support Mohamed’s college tuition needs, and the family agreed
that he would enroll in Oregon State University (OSU) and pursue a degree in
engineering. Id .
7. Mohamed Starts His Freshman Year At Oregon State University
In September 2009, Mohamed moved to the OSU campus in Corvallis. His
freshman roommate, Luis Martinez, and a number of his other associates from
school testified at trial, describing him as a “really fun guy to be around,” Tr. 2405,
an outgoing, friendly, and social student. Tr. 1858, 1871-74, 2178. His friends
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 47 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
48/256
25
included individuals from a wide variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds. Tr.
2405. No one described him as violent or heard him condone violence against the
United States. Tr. 2410.
During his freshman year, Mohamed began binge drinking and using
marijuana. Tr. 458. Although he was involved socially in many activities, including
the African Students Association, Tr. 2178, he also expressed feelings of loneliness
or being lost. A Somali-American junior at OSU, Mohammad Mohamed, tried to act
as a mentor to Mohamed, acknowledging that, when he was a freshman, he did not
have a person to “guide him along.” Tr. 2177. He and Mohamed spoke about
religion, about what it was like when he, Mohammad, had lived in a Muslim country,
and about other daily college events. Tr. 2177-81. Mohamed’s text messages
reflected a busy college life of socializing, studying, and drinking. Ex. 1016.
8.
FBI Surveillance In The Fall Of 2009
Unbeknownst to Mohamed, the FBI went with him to college. They conducted
physical surveillance, videotaping Mohamed with his friends at the college cafeteria.
Tr. 1459-60; Ex. 1016. They also conducted electronic surveillance, capturing all of
his text messages, phone calls, emails and internet searches. Tr. 381, 1442. The case
agent at the time, SA DeLong, felt that Mohamed’s communications did not have
“the same radical speak that he had espoused early on, when he was communicating
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 48 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
49/256
26
with Samir Khan.” Tr. 1443. On October 27, 2009, SA DeLong wrote an email to
his supervisors on the case, recording his observations about Mohamed. Tr. 1451.
He explained that, since Mohamed had started college, “for the most part he has left
behind his radical thinking.” Tr. 1452. Mohamed was not expressing the same views
he had expressed in Jihad Recollections. Tr. 1453.
Similarly, on November 16, 2009, SA DeLong wrote an email describing
Mohamed as a “ pretty manipulable, conflicted kid.” Tr. 1466. The agent had
reviewed the Jihad Recollections articles and saw them as representing the “hard
ruling Islamic life,” but he did not see the same mindset reflected in Mohamed’s
communications now that he had started college. Tr. 1466-67.
9. The Portland FBI Transfers Mohamed’s Case
Because Mohamed was attending college in Corvallis, the Portland FBI began
transferring his case to Eugene, where a new case agent, Chris Henderson, took over.
Tr. 1464-65.6 At this point, there were at least four government agencies or offices
investigating or interested in Mohamed: the Portland FBI, the Eugene FBI, the San
Francisco FBI, and the Charlotte, North Carolina FBI, which had been investigating
Samir Khan. Tr. 1315, 1434-42. There appeared to be a lack of communication
6 Agent Henderson did not testify at trial. He was with the FBI for less thanthree years and left the FBI while Mohamed’s case was still on-going. Tr. 1465.
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 49 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
50/256
27
between the offices. For example, Special Agent Dodd testified at trial that he
received authorization from SA DeLong to begin an online undercover investigation
of Mohamed, Tr. 1494, but SA DeLong could not recall anything about that. Tr.
1447; 1449. SA Dodd began the emails to Mohamed (the “Bill Smith” emails), just
as the case was transferred to Eugene. Tr. 1499. SA Dodd testified that he also
communicated with Chris Henderson in Eugene about the emails, but the timing was
not clear. Tr. 1500.
Similarly, Special Agent Chan from San Francisco testified that he had
authorization, in November of 2009, to start on-line covert contact with Mohamed.
Tr. 1315. His operative twice attempted contact but was “unsuccessful,” in that he
did not receive a response from Mohamed. Tr. 1316. SA Chan did not know about
Bill Smith’s efforts. Tr. 1316. In fact, he only learned about Bill Smith’s
involvement in contacting Mohamed after Mohamed’s arrest. Tr. 1316.
10. November 9, 2009: The “Bill Smith” Emails Begin
Under the supervision of SA Dodd, the first Bill Smith email was sent
November 9th and read:
Brother, I saw – I saw a post you wrote a while back in the Google
group. I think it was called the hijrah group. I wanted to talk some toyou. I’m here in the West, as well, but here I am one of the onlyMuslims around. I want to get more involved in the fight for theUmmah. I want to help rid the occupiers from Palestine. I don’t even
Case: 14-30217, 05/27/2015, ID: 9552081, DktEntry: 15-2, Page 50 of 256
8/20/2019 Mohamed Osman Mohamed FBI fakebombtrial Appeal Brief
51/256
28
know if I have the right email for you. Please respond if I do. Salamalaikum.
Ex. 226-01; Tr. 1501. “Bill Smith” was a paid FBI contractor under the supervision
of SA Dodd. Tr. 1495.7 Mohamed responded back the next day that he did not “fully
understand” the question but invited Bill Smith to ask more. Ex. 226-02. Mohamed
did not reciprocate or say that he, too, wanted to be involved in the “fight for the
Ummah.”8
11.
November 12, 2009: Mohamed Expresses Confusion
Before he received the second covert ema