Case: 12-1461 Document: 00116470099 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Entry ID: 5698298 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 12-1461 Tarek Mehanna, Defendant-Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT TAREK MEHANNA Sabin Willett, No. 18725 J. W. Carney, Jr., No. 40016 Susan Baker Manning, No. 1152545 CARNEY & BASSIL Julie Silva Palmer, No. 1140407 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1405 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP Boston, MA 02116 One Federal Street 617.338.5566 Boston, Massachusetts 02110-1726 617.951.8000 Case: 12-1461 Document: 00116470099 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Entry ID: 5698298 TABLE OF CONTENTS REASONS WHY ORAL ARGUMENT SHOULD BE HEARD ........................... xi JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ......................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................. 3 STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................... 7 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................................................. 19 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 21 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................... 21 II. THE MERITS ............................................................................................... 22 A. The Government’s Non-Speech Theories Cannot Support the Convictions Under Counts I-IV. ........................................................ 22 1. Controlling Conspiracy Decisions Were Ignored. ................... 23 2. The Statutory Insufficiency of the Evidence. .......................... 26 3. The Conspiracy Evidence. ....................................................... 29 4. The Government Did Not Prove “Attempt.” ........................... 33 B. Mehanna’s Speech Was Not, and Constitutionally Cannot Be Material Support (Counts I-III). ......................................................... 35 1. Mehanna’s First Amendment Rights. ...................................... 36 2. The Trial Court Misapplied the Core Concept of “Coordination.” ........................................................................ 40 3. The Court’s Instructions on “Coordination” Were Insufficient and Erroneous. ...................................................... 47 4. The Court’s Direction to Ignore the First Amendment Warrants Reversal. ................................................................... 51 C. Multiple Errors at Trial Separately Warrant Reversal. ...................... 54 1. Inflammatory But Protected Speech Evidence So Prejudiced the Trial that the Convictions on All Counts Must Be Reversed. ................................................................... 54 2. The Court Erred In Excluding Mehanna’s Expert Rebuttal Witnesses. .................................................................. 59 i Case: 12-1461 Document: 00116470099 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Entry ID: 5698298 3. Appellant was Unfairly Prejudiced By the Court’s Brady Ruling. ...................................................................................... 61 D. The Government Could Not Prove Materiality as to Count VI. ........ 63 E. Prejudice and the Spill-over of Evidence Requires Reversal and Remand of All Counts. ....................................................................... 68 F. In the Alternative, Mehanna Is Entitled to Resentencing. ................. 70 III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 71 ii Case: 12-1461 Document: 00116470099 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Entry ID: 5698298 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) FEDERAL CASES Al Bahlul v. United States, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1324 ......................................................................................... 40 Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) ............................................................................................ 26 Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002) ............................................................................................ 36 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234 (2002) ............................................................................................ 40 Bachellar v. Maryland, 397 U.S. 564 (1970) ............................................................................................ 68 Bd. of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982) ............................................................................................ 39 Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116 (1966) ............................................................................................ 37 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) .................................................................................. 20, 62, 63 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) .....................................................................................passim Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 (1998) ............................................................................................ 65 Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) .................................................................................. 4, 21, 69 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ............................................................................................ 60 Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) ............................................................................................ 38 iii Case: 12-1461 Document: 00116470099 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Entry ID: 5698298 Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) ............................................................................................ 45 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) ............................................................................................ 37 Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974) .............................................................................................. 53 Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972) ............................................................................................ 46 Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973) ............................................................................................ 38 Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) ............................................................................................ 45 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705 (2010) .................................................................................passim In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008) ................................................................................. 27 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) ............................................................................................ 45 Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) ............................................................................................ 39 Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 (1987) ............................................................................................ 70 NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) ...................................................................................... 21, 37 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) ............................................................................................ 36 Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290 (1961) ............................................................................................ 38 iv Case: 12-1461 Document: 00116470099 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/17/2012 Entry ID: 5698298 Ruiz-Troche v. Pepsi Cola of Puerto Rico Bottling, 161 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 1998) ................................................................................. 61 Sanchez-Lopez v. Fuentes-Pujols, 375 F.3d 121 (1st Cir. 2004) ................................................................... 47, 48, 53 Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) ............................................................................ 21, 36, 37 Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) ............................................................................................ 56 Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) ...................................................................................... 62, 63 Stromberg v. State of Cal., 283 U.S. 359 (1931) ............................................................................................ 68 Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) ...................................................................................... 36, 52 Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981) ............................................................................................ 16 United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 600 F. Supp. 2d 362 (D. Conn. 2009) ................................................................. 43 United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008) ............................................................................... 57 United States v. Bailey, 123 F.3d 1381 (11th Cir. 1997) .........................................................................