# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 38 28

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Lib an Hass an

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 25 , 20 16

Fil ed : Dec em

be r 21 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BEAM an d LOKEN, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Lib an Has sa n ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti o n

, f o l l owi ng a jury tri al

, fo r ro bb ery in

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 19 51

, aft er he an d th ree ot he rs st ol e ap pr ox im at el y $1 50 incas h an d se ve ral cart on s of ci ga ret te s fro m a co nv en ie nc e st or e ga so li ne st at io n. W e

affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t. 1

I. BACKGRO UND

The ev id en ce ad du ced at tri al in di cat ed th at Has sa n an d th ree as so ci at es

, Yus uf

Xas an , Abd ifa ta h Has hi , and Fu ad Bu raal e, were d riv in g aro un d Om ah a whe n t he y

fo rm ul at ed a pl an to ro b a ga s st at io n co nv en ie nc e st or e fo r cas h an d ci ga ret te s. The

st or e cl erk an d X a s a n t e s t ifi ed fo r th e go ve rn m en t at tri al

. Xas an st at ed th at as th e

fo u r w e r e pr oc eed in g wes t th ro ug h Om ah a, th e fo ur of th em en de d up ne ar th e

ta rg et ed co nv en ie nc e st or e an d be ga n by br eak in g in to an d st eal i n g f ro m un lo ck ed

cars in th e ne ig hb or ho od

. Xas an te st ifi e d th at Has sa n sa id th ey sh ou ld go in to th e

co nv en i e n c e s t o re an d ta ke ci ga ret te s an d cas h, whi ch Has sa n al le ge d he ha d do ne

wit h su cces s whe n li vi ng in Mi nn es ot a. Xas an te st ifi ed th at he pa rk ed th e car at th e

st or e so a s t o a vo id th e se cu rit y cam era si gh t li ne s. Xas an al so le ft th e car ru nn in g

fo r a fas t ge ta way

. All fo ur en te red th e st or e, an d Bu raal e in di cat ed he ha d a gu n (b ut

ap pa ren tl y di d no t) an d y el le d, "wh ere's th e m on ey ? " Xas an gr ab be d th e cl erk at th e

co un te r fro m be hi nd

, pu t so m e ob ject ne xt to th e cl erk 's ne ck

, an d fo rced th e cl erk to

op en bo th cas h reg is te rs

. Xas an an d Bu raal e to ok ap pr ox im at el y $1 50 in cas h an d

cart on s of ci ga ret te s. Afte r ro bb in g th e st or e, th e fo ur wen t to Has sa n's res id en ce (h e

was st ay in g wi th hi s s is te r) an d s pl it th e p ro ceed s.

Dur in g th e cl erk 's te st im on y at tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t of fere d Exh ib it 1, a DVD

wit h vi de o reco rd in gs of th e ro bb ery. The ex hi bi t was a se rie s of vi de o cl ip s, rat he r

th an on e co nt in uo us vi de o. The go ve rn m en t la id fo un da ti on fo r th e vi de o vi a

qu es ti on s to th e cl erk who ve rif ie d th at th e vi de o cl ip s (wh ic h he ha d vi ewed pr io r

to tri al ) were a fai r an d ad eq ua te de sc rip ti on of wha t ha pp en ed du rin g th e ro bb ery.

The Hon or ab le Lau rie Sm it h Cam p, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1

fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.

-2

-Pri or to tri al

, du rin g di sc ov ery, de fen se co un se l was pr ov id ed w i t h a D V D th at

co nt ai ne d si xt een vi de o an gl es of th e ro bb ery. Howev er, at tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t on ly

sh owe d two of th es e cl ip s to th e jury du rin g th e te st im on y of th e cl erk

, Xa s a n, an d

Has sa n.

Non et he le ss

, on e of th e vi de o cl ip s sh own at tri al in di cat ed th at Has sa n walk ed

ou t of th e co nv en ie nc e st or e sh or tl y aft er walk in g in , a nd st oo d ou t s i d e th e do or of

th e st or e. Thi s vi de o cl ip arg ua bl y su pp or te d bo th Has sa n's de fen se th eo ry th at he di d

no t pa rti ci pa te or kn ow th e ro bb ery was go in g to ha pp en

, an d al so th e go ve rn m en t's

th eo ry th at Ha ss an he lp ed se cu re th e in si de

, an d th en wen t ba ck ou ts id e to be th e

lo ok ou t. Acco rd in g to th e te st im on y el ic it ed at tri al

, Has sa n ap pe ars to be co ve rin g

hi s face whi le on vi de o. Has sa n st at ed on cro ss ex am in at io n th at he was do in g so ou t

of di sb el ie f of

what was g oi ng on in si de th e co nv en ie nc e st or e.

At t he clo se of th e go ve rn m en t's ev id en ce, Has sa n un su cces sf ul ly m ov ed for

jud gm en t of acq ui tt al pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 29

. Has sa n an d

hi s si st er te st ifi ed du rin g th e de fen se po rti on of th e tri al

. Has sa n as se rte d th at he di d

no t kn ow hi s as so c i a t e s w e r e go in g to ro b th e st or e an d th at is why he le ft

imm ed ia te ly aft er go in g in th e st or e. He te st ifi ed th at he di d no t in it ia ll y ru n away

be cau se hi s cel l ph on e was lo ck ed in th e car, bu t whe n he la te r ret rie ve d it

, th e ph on e

was de ad

. Non et he le ss

, Has sa n's si st er te st ifi ed th at H a s s a n c al le d he r earl y in th e

m or ni ng

, as ke d to st ay at h e r ho us e, an d arri ve d th ere al on e. Has sa n ag ai n

un su cces sf

ul ly m ov ed for

jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al at t he clo se of h is de fen se cas e.

Dur in g cl os in g a r g u men t, de fen se co un se l, st il l no t real iz in g th at th e jury

w o u l d o n ly be sh own th e two vi de o cl ip s sh own du rin g tri al in st ead of th e si x t e e n

cl ip s he rece iv e d du rin g di sc ov ery, to ld th e jury th ey co ul d vi ew a reco rd in g wit h

si xt een di ffer e n t a ng le s of th e ro bb ery. At th is po in t, th e go ve rn m en t ob jecte d.

Dur in g a si de b a r

, d e fen se co un se l co m pl ai ne d ab ou t th e fact th at th e DVD be in g

of fere d in to ev id en ce at tri al was a tru nc at ed ve rs io n of wha t he was gi ve n du rin g

-3

-di sc ov ery. The di st ric t co ur t ga ve a li m it in g in st ru ct io n an d th e jury was on ly gi ve n

th e DVD wit h th e two vi de o cl ip s sh own du rin g tri al

. The jury de li be rat ed an d fo un d

Has sa n gu il ty of in te rfer en ce wit h c o mm erce by m ean s of ro bb ery as ch arg ed in

Co un t 1 of th e in di ct m en t. Has sa n m ov ed pu rs ua nt to F e de ral Ru le of Cri m in al

Pro ced ur e 33 fo r a ne w tri al

, as rel ev an t, arg ui ng th at it was erro r fo r th e go ve rn m en t

to of fer a di ffer en t DVD at tri al th an th e on e co un se l rece iv ed du rin g di sc ov ery, an d

th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e co nv ic ti on

. Th e di st ric t co ur t

de ni ed th e m ot io n. Has sa n a pp eal s.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

Und er Ru le 29

, th e co ur t "m us t en te r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al of an y of fen se fo r

whi ch th e ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t to su st ai n a co nv ic ti on ." Fed

. R

. Cri m

. P. 29 (a).

Ru le 2 9 ( c ) pe rm it s de fen da nt s to m ov e th e co ur t to se t as id e a ve rd ic t an d en te r

jud gm en t of acq ui tt al aft er tri al ; ho wev er, a di st ric t co ur t ha s ve ry li m it ed la ti tu de to

do so an d m

us t no t as se ss wit ne ss cred ib il it y or weig h ev id en ce, an d t h e e v i d e n c e

m us t be vi ewed in a li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t. Uni te d St at es v. St ack s,

82 1 F.3 d 10 38

, 10 43 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 33 (a) st at es

th at "t he co ur t m ay va cat e an y jud gm en t an d gr an t a ne w tri al if th e in te res t of jus ti ce

so req ui res ." As di st in ct fro m Ru le 29

, th e co ur t ha s br oa d di sc ret io n in de c i di ng

mo t i o n s f

or ne w tri al

, an d it s de ci si on is su bjec t to rev ers al on ly fo r a cl ear an d

m an ife st ab us e of di sc ret io n. U n i t e d St at es v. Am ay a, 73 1 F.3 d 76 1, 76 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 13 ). Als o in co nt ras t t o R ul e 29 , i n co ns id eri ng a m ot io n fo r ne w t ria l, th e co ur t

ne ed no t vi ew th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t an d it is

pe rm it te d to weig h th e ev id en ce an d ev al ua te th e cred ib il it y of th e wit ne ss es

. Uni te d

St at es v. Kni gh t, 80 0 F.3 d 49 1, 50 4- 05 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Non et he le ss

, m ot io ns fo r ne w

tri al s ba se d on th e weig ht of th e ev id en ce ge ne ral ly are di sf a v o r ed

, an d th e di st ric t

co ur t's au th or it y

to gra nt a ne w tri al sh ou ld rare ly be ex erci se d. Id . at 5 04

.

-4

-Has sa n arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to es ta bl is h th e in te nt el em en t of th e

cri m e of in te rfer en ce wit h co m m erce by m ean s of ro bb ery. Sp eci fic al ly, Has sa n

a r gu es th at th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to sh ow th at he kn owi ng ly ro bb ed or ai d e d a n d

ab et te d in th e ro bb ery of th e co nv en ie nc e st or e

. H a s sa n m ak es two pr im ary

arg um en ts ; fir st

, th at he di d no t ha ve th e req ui si te m en s rea fo r ro bb ery (in vo lv in g th e

us e or th reat en ed us e of fo rce or vi ol en ce), as th e on ly di sc us si on in th e car in vo lv ed

m or e of a sh op li fti ng "g rab an d go " ki nd of cri m e. Seco nd , Ha ss a n mak e s a "m ere

pr es en ce" arg um en t– th at hi s be in g at th e sc en e of th e cri m e can no t es ta bl is h th at he

kn owi ng ly ro bb ed or ai d e d an d ab et te d in th e ro bb ery. See Uni te d St at es v. Red a,

76 5 F.2 d 71 5, 71 9 (8 th Ci r.19 85 ) ("[ G] ui lt can no t be in ferr ed fro m

. . . m ere pr es en ce

at th e sc en e of a cri m e or a m ere as so ci at io n wit h m em be rs of a cri mi n a l

co ns pi rac y ."). In so do in g, Has sa n at ta ck s Xas an 's cred ib il it y

. Has sa n arg ue s th at

Xa s a n ' s te st im on y do es no t es ta bl is h th at th e di sc us si on in th e car in cl ud ed th e

po ss ib il it y of ei th er us in g or pr et en di ng to ha ve a gu n. Has sa n al so arg ue s th at Xas an

was an es pe ci a l l y un -cre di bl e wit ne ss be cau se he was th e act ua l pe rp et rat or of th e

ro bb ery an d ha d m ot iv a t i o n t o li e to ge t a se nt en ci ng br eak

. Has sa n al so po in ts to

se ve ral in st an ces whe rei n Xas an arg ua bl y co nt rad ic te d hi m se lf on di rect ex am in at io n

an d c ro ss ex am in at io n.

In ev al ua ti ng a m ot io n fo r jud gm e n t of acq ui tt al

, we can no t pa ss up on th e

cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es or th e weig ht to be gi ve n th ei r te st im on y

, as th is is un iq ue ly

w i t h i n th e pr ov in ce of th e tri er of fact

, an d en ti tl ed to sp eci al de fere nc e. Uni te d

St at es v. Goo da le

, 73 8 F.3 d 91 7, 92 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 1 3)

. Of co ur se

, in ev al ua ti ng

whe th er a ne w tri al sh ou ld be gr an te d, we m ay ev al ua te th e cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es

.

Kni gh t, 8 00 F.3d at 5 04

.

Evi de nc e in th e reco rd su pp or ts th e jury's co nc lu si on th at Has s a n ha d th e

req ui si te m en s rea an d i n t e nt fo r ro bb ery an d was no t m erel y pr es en t at th e sc en e.

Xas an te st ifi ed th at Has sa n cam e up wit h th e id ea to ro b th e co nv en ie nc e st or e.

Vid eo ev id en ce in di cat ed th at Has sa n en te red th e st or e wit h th e th ree ot he rs

, an d th en

-5

-sh or tl y th erea f t er wait ed ou ts id e th e do or

. Xas an te st ifi ed th at Has sa n le ft th e

lo cat io n in th e ve hi cl e wit h th e th ree ot he rs an d th at Has sa n pe rs on al ly rece iv ed so m e

of th e cas h an d ci ga ret te s ta ke n f r o m t h e s t or e. Fo r th e pu rp os es of th e Ru le 29

m ot io n, Xas an 's te st im on y is vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t, an d we

fin d th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t th e ve rd ic t. Al t h o u g h Xas an te st ifi ed

on cro ss ex am in at io n th at th ere was no di sc us si on of fo rce o r th e us e of a gu n, a

reas on ab le jury co ul d hav e co nc lu de d th at be cau se th e ob ject of th e cri m e was cas h

a n d c ig aret te s, us e of fo rce or th reat en ed fo rce wou ld reas on ab ly be ne ces sa r y t o

co m pl et e th e cri m e. Ev e n i f t h e f o ur di d no t sp eci fic al ly m en ti on an in te nt to us e

fo rce ( real or p ret en d) when di sc us si ng th e cri m e, th e ob ject of th e cap er b el ie s an y

no ti on th at fo rce wou ld no t be ne ces sa ry

. Cas h an d ci ga ret te s are no t ou t in th e op en

on sh el vi n g l i k e g u m or can dy. Any "g rab bi ng " of cas h or ci ga ret te s wou ld

ne ces sa ril y in vo lv e th e us e or th reat of fo rce, un le ss th e fo ur so m eh ow kn ew th e st or e

em pl oyee wou ld be co m

pl ic it or co m

pl et el y un in te re s t e d i n th e cri m e. Fi na ll y

, we

fin d no th in g in th e reco rd to su gg es t th at th e in te res t of jus ti ce req ui res a ne w tri al to

be gra nt ed un de r Ru le 33

.

Has sa n al so m ak es refe ren ce to th e di sp ut e ov er th e vi de o cl ip s in hi s st at em en t

of th e cas e, al le gi ng th at "[b ]ecaus e co un se l fo r th e go ve rn m en t an d de fen se co un se l

were on di ffer en t pa ge s in te rm s of wha t di gi ta l ev id en ce was on th e ke y Exh ib it

, an d

th e App el la nt was p r e

ju d ic ed as a res ul t, th e App el la nt no w se ek s a jud ic ia l

de te rm in at io n of th e li ng eri ng is su e of whe th er or no t su ch an in ad ve rte nt su pp res si on

of ev id en ce jus ti fie s a ne w tri a l

. " Th e r e is no fu rth er m en ti on of th is arg um en t in

Has sa n's br ie fin g; ho wev er, be cau se th e is su e was cu rs or il y rai se d in th e op en in g

br ie f, we ex erci se ou r di sc ret io n to co ns id er th e arg um en ts m ad e to th e di st ric t co ur t

on th is is su e in th e p os t-t ria l m ot io ns

.

The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at th e go ve rn m en t di d no t vi ol at e Brad y v. Mar y la nd

,

37 3 U.S. 83 (1 96 3)

, by vi rtu e o f i ts us e of Exh ib it 1 be cau se th e go ve rn m en t ha d

di sc lo se d th e en ti re vi de o pr io r to tri al

. Brad y co ve rs th e su p p r e s s i o n o f ev id en ce,

-6

-id

. at 86

, no t th e us e of ev id en ce at tri al th at is pa ck ag ed di ffer en tl y th an it was du rin g

pr et ria l di sc lo su res

, whi ch is es se nt ia ll y wha t ha pp en ed he re. Pri or to tri al

, de fen se

co un se l was gi ve n a DVD wit h al l th e cam era an gl e vi de o cl ip s, an d th e go ve rn m en t

us ed on ly a po rti on of th os e cl ip s at tri al

. Defen se co un se l al lu de d to a pr ob le m wit h

th e way th e go ve rn m en t de sc rib ed th e ex hi bi t it wa s g o i ng to us e, le ad in g de fen se

co un se l to be li ev e th at th e en ti re DVD wou ld be sh own at tri al

. Bu t th at po ss ib il it y

do es no t pr es en t a Brad y is su e. The re is no qu es ti on th at Exh ib it 1 was co rrec tl y

au th en ti cat ed an d th at a pr op er fo un da ti on was la id fo r th e ex hi bi t. The di st ric t co ur t

fo un d th ere was "n o ev id en ce" th at th e g o v e r n men t m is le d th e co ur t or th e wit ne ss

or th e de fen se te am wit h reg ard to Exh ib it 1, an d we do no t se e an y th in g in th e reco rd

to refu te th at no ti on

.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

Hass an 's c on vi ct io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-