United States v. Yousef

United States v. Yousef

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

May 3, 2002, Argued ; April 4, 2003, Decided

Docket Nos. 98-1041 L, 98-1197, 98-1355, 99-1544, 99-1554





I. World Trade Center Bombing

II. Airline Bombing



I. Preparation for Airline Bombing Conspiracy

II. Discovery of Airline Bombing Plot

III. Arrests of Shah, Yousef, and Murad


I. Assertion of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Over Defendants Yousef and Murad

A. Jurisdiction to Prosecute Defendants' Extraterritorial Conduct Under Federal Law

1. Applicable Law

2. Counts Thirteen and Fourteen

3. Count Twelve

4. Count Nineteen

B. Exercise of United States Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Customary International Law

 [*76]  1. Bases of Jurisdiction over the Counts Charged

a. Relationship between Domestic and International Law in Yousef's Prosecution

b. Treaty-Based Jurisdiction: The Hague and Montreal Conventions

2. Jurisdiction over Counts Twelve through Eighteen

3. Jurisdiction over Count Nineteen

a. The District Court's Holding and Yousef's Challenges on Appeal

i. The District Court's Opinion

ii. The Use of Authority [**4]  in Determining Customary International Law

iii. The Universality Principle Provides for Jurisdiction over Only a Limited Set of Acts Violating the Law of Nations

b. Jurisdiction Is Proper Under United States Laws Giving Effect to Its Obligations Under the Montreal Convention

c. In Any Event, Jurisdiction Over Count Nineteen Is Proper under the Protective Principle of Customary International Law

C. Due Process Claims

1. Due Process Nexus

2. Due Process in Conduct of Trial

D. Venue in Southern District of New York

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

327 F.3d 56 *; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 6437 **; 61 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 251

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.

Subsequent History:  [**1]  As Amended April 14, 2003. As Amended June 18, 2003.

US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Yousef v. United States, 540 U.S. 933, 124 S. Ct. 353, 157 L. Ed. 2d 241, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 7238 (2003)

US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Ismoil v. United States, 540 U.S. 993, 124 S. Ct. 492, 157 L. Ed. 2d 392, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 8178 (2003)

Post-conviction proceeding at, Remanded by United States v. Yousef, 395 F.3d 76, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 570 (2d Cir. N.Y., 2005)

Subsequent civil proceeding at, Transfer denied by Ajaj v. Mackechnie, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56273 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2008)

Post-conviction relief denied at, Transferred by United States v. Ramzi Yousef, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85612 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2011)

Prior History: Appeal by Ramzi Yousef, Eyad Ismoil, and Abdul Hakim Murad from judgments of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kevin Thomas Duffy, Judge) on April 13, June 2, and June 15, 1998, respectively. Judge Duffy presided over two separate jury trials. In the first trial, Yousef, Murad, and another defendant were tried on charges relating to a conspiracy to bomb twelve United States commercial airliners in Southeast Asia. In the second trial, Yousef and Ismoil were tried for their involvement in the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City. Yousef, Ismoil, and Murad now appeal from their convictions, raising numerous questions of domestic and international law. Yousef and Ismoil also appeal from the District Court's denial of several of their post-judgment motions.

United States v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 17431 (2d Cir. N.Y., 2001)

Disposition: Apart from a modification of Ismoil's judgment with respect to the requirements of restitution, the judgments of conviction are affirmed in all respects.

bombing, district court, international law, aircraft, customary, sentence, airline, Counts, Convention, universal, apartment, indictment, treaty, terrorism, argues, rights, Restatement, suppress, flight, redacted, conspiracy, arrested, torture, custody, authorities, terrorist, extraterritorial, charges, convictions, extradite

Criminal Law & Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, General Overview, Weapons Offenses, Possession of Weapons, Use of Weapons, Fraud Against the Government, Conspiracy to Defraud, Inchoate Crimes, Conspiracy, Crimes Against Persons, Terrorism, Transportation Law, Air & Space Transportation, Airports, Destruction of Aircraft & Airports, Homicide, Manslaughter & Murder, Murder, Terroristic Acts, Attempt, Simple Use, Elements, Obstruction of Administration of Justice, Escape, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Due Process, Scope of Protection, Congressional Duties & Powers, International Law, Authority to Regulate, Criminal Offenses, Vehicular Crimes, Commercial Vehicles, Foreign Commerce, Business & Corporate Compliance, Transportation Law, Charters, Jurisdiction & Venue, Jurisdiction, Governments, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate, International Trade Law, Air Piracy, Registration, Smuggling, Goods Smuggling, Administrative Law, Separation of Powers, Accessories, Accessory After the Fact, Hague Convention, Preliminary Proceedings, Extradition, Montreal Convention, Aircraft Hijacking, Sources of International Law, Dispute Resolution, Conflict of Law, Treaty Interpretation, Judicial Precedent, Legislation, Interpretation, Federal Government, US Congress, Tribunals, Individuals & Sovereign States, Human Rights, Slavery, Treaty Formation, Treaty Ratifications, Extradition Treaties, Extraditable Offenses, Procedures, Terrorism, Laws of War, Genocide, War Crimes, The Judiciary, Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure, Jurisdictional Sources, Statutory Sources, Trials, Defendant's Rights, Right to Due Process, Discovery by Defendant, Tangible Objects, Evidence, Assistance Obtaining Evidence, Service of Process, Abuse of Discretion, Abuse of Discretion, Evidence, Relevance, Preservation of Relevant Evidence, Exclusion & Preservation by Prosecutors, Judicial Discretion, Venue, Doctrine of Specialty, Specialty