03CR978 - 2 USA vs. Muhammad Salah Page 1 of 2

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Amy J. St. Eve Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 03 CR 978 - 2 DATE 3/2/2006

CASE

TITLE

USA vs. Muhammad Salah

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Defendant’s motion to bar the government from presenting testimony or other evidence that his alleged

statements were corroborated or reliable is granted in part and denied in part.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Defendant Muhammad Salah asks the Court to bar the government from presenting evidence that the

oral and written statements that Defendant allegedly made to Israeli authorities in 1993 were corroborated or

reliable at the upcoming suppression hearing. Defendant relies on Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 92 S. Ct.

619, 30 L. Ed. 2d 618 (1972) for the proposition that “[t]he sole issue in [a voluntariness] hearing is whether

a confession was coerced. Whether it be true or false is irrelevant; indeed, such an inquiry is forbidden.” 

404 U.S. at 485 n.12, 92 S. Ct. at 624. The Supreme Court has made clear that district courts should

determine the voluntariness of a statement “with complete disregard of whether or not petitioner in fact spoke

the truth.” Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 544, 81 S. Ct. 735, 741, 5 L. Ed. 2d 760 (1961). Accordingly,

the Court agrees that the government may not present any “corroborating” evidence for the purpose of

establishing whether Defendant’s alleged statements were true or false. The government, however, may

present “corroborating” evidence to the extent that it bears directly on the issues of coercion, voluntariness

and whether Defendant’s will was overborne. In setting forth this ruling, the Court does not concede that the

examples the government includes in its response fall within this category of permissible evidence. 

Furthermore, the government may not rely on evidence it possessed, yet failed to produce to Defendant.

Additionally, Defendant requests that the Court bar the government from submitting as an exhibit in

the suppression hearing the English translations of Defendant’s alleged statements. As an initial matter, “the

rules of evidence normally applicable in criminal trials do not operate with full force at hearings before the

judge to determine the admissibility of evidence.” United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 172-73, 94 S. Ct.

988, 994, 39 L. Ed. 2d 242 (1974) (citations omitted). Furthermore, as Defendant acknowledges, to

determine if Defendant’s will was overborne, the Court will assess “the totality of all the surrounding

circumstances-both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.” Schneckloth v.

Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2047, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1973). The Seventh Circuit has

explained that the totality of the circumstances “[b]y definition . . . includes the confession itself.” United

Case: 1:03-cr-00978 Document #: 447 Filed: 03/02/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2138
STATEMENT

03CR978 - 2 USA vs. Muhammad Salah Page 2 of 2

1. On reply, Defendant asserts that Watson is distinguishable because the case involved a failure

to administer Miranda warnings. The Court disagrees. It does reiterate, however, that the

government may not introduce the English translations for the purpose of establishing whether

Defendant’s alleged statements were true or false. 

2. Although Defendant does not contest the accuracy of the translations in his motion, the Court

notes that their accuracy is subject to cross examination.

States v. Watson, 87 F.3d 927, 930-31 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The district court erred in prohibiting the government

from using [the defendant’s] confession as a prior inconsistent statement.”).1 Therefore, the Court denies

Defendant’s request to bar the government from introducing the English translations.2

For these reasons, Defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Case: 1:03-cr-00978 Document #: 447 Filed: 03/02/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2139