Opinion ID: 2995529
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Evidence Concerning

Text: Hamas It is well understood that evidentiary rulings by the trial judge are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Aldaco, 201 F.3d 979, 985 (7th Cir. 2000). The defendant complained that some of the evidence admitted in the government’s rebuttal case was irrelevant, collateral, or lacking proper foundation. As the defendant failed to object at trial, the plain error standard of review applies. See United States v. Hughes, 213 F.3d 323, 328 (7th Cir. 2000). There is nothing raised at this late date by defendant that could possibly have had any substantial effect on the verdict. The result reached was not inconsistent with substantial justice. His late arguments border on the frivolous. The government called FBI Special Agent Charles Peters as an expert to explain the role and function of Shin Bet in Israel as an agency concerned with internal security, not prosecutions. The agent testified about other facts in the case and stated that he had found no evidence in the record, including in the grand jury transcripts, where the defendant ever expressed any concern for the safety of his family. The defendant offered no timely explanation of why any of the government’s evidence was only collateral. He objected to the FBI agent’s summary of the record as hearsay, but he pointed out no error. The defendant has abandoned that objection here. We find no error of any degree. The airline tickets used by the defendant and his former schoolmate to travel to Damascus in 1992 were admitted into evidence and shown to the jury before the defendant objected to their admission for lack of adequate foundation. On cross-examination the defendant claimed he was not familiar with the tickets. Agent Peters had, as part of his investigation efforts, come into possession of the tickets. With the defendant’s handwritten statement that he and Rezeq Saleh had traveled to Damascus in 1992, this provided sufficient foundation for admission of the tickets as evidence for jury consideration. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) requiring a business records exception to hearsay did not apply as defendant argues. Contrary to the defendant’s claim, it is sufficient that the exhibit supplied strong circumstantial evidence of the accuracy of the defendant’s statements to the Israeli authorities. There was no abuse of discretion in admitting this evidence. The defendant also objects to the admission of evidence about Hamas which was offered by the government’s expert witness in response to defendant’s efforts to establish a coercion defense. The evidence, which suggested the defendant was attempting to protect Hamas and Rezeq Saleh, came only in response and in answer to the defendant’s explanation. In the government’s case-in- chief, the evidence only explained the general nature of the grand jury investigation. Reference was again made to Hamas when the government presented evidence of the defendant’s refusal to testify on July 11, 2000. His refusal to testify after being granted immunity, however, is the very basis of the charge in this case. The defendant argues it was a violation of Fed. R. Evid. 403. His explanation is that the government’s Hamas evidence was intended to brand Defendant with a huge scarlet ’H,’ to paint Defendant with provocative evidence [to characterize him] as a murderous, bloodthirsty Hamas terrorist seeking to protect his ’buddies.’ That argument is colorful and imaginative, but we find no basis for it in the record. There was no abuse of discretion in the admission of the Hamas evidence. The defendant’s other objections to the evidence are without merit. Agent Peters’ testimony about Shin Bet was without objection at the time. The defendant further objects to Agent Peters’ testimony concerning his review of the transcripts in relation to whether the defendant ever stated he feared for his safety. The defendant’s objection now is that it was hearsay, but Fed. R. Evid. 1006 specifically permits voluminous writings as a practical matter to be sum marized. The defendant did not cross- examine Agent Peters on this issue. We find no error.