Opinion ID: 781722
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: World Trade Center Case

Text: 485 With respect to the World Trade Center bombing trial, we hold: 486 1. The District Court did not err in denying Yousef's motion to dismiss the indictment. 487 2. Yousef's Miranda waiver was not rendered invalid simply because his right to counsel had already attached. 488 3. Because Yousef did not invoke his right to counsel before any United States official, the admission of his post-arrest statements into evidence did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. 489 4. Yousef's Fifth Amendment right to due process was not violated by the United States Government's failure to provide him with counsel after taking him into custody. 490 5. Yousef waived any argument that his post-arrest statements were involuntary and coerced as a result of his alleged torture by foreign officials. 491 6. The District Court properly denied Ismoil's motions to suppress his post-arrest statements. 492 7. The District Court did not commit reversible error by requiring the defense to produce their experts at the Daubert hearing. 493 8. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in choosing to redact certain references to Yousef from Ismoil's written confession rather than granting Yousef's motion for severance, and neither Yousef nor Ismoil was significantly prejudiced by the joint trial. 494 9. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Yousef's motion for a change of venue. 495 10. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting Ismoil from introducing various items of evidence from the first World Trade Center bombing trial into evidence because these items were irrelevant and, therefore, inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. 496 11. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence comparisons made of Ismoil's latent fingerprints found on items at the Pamrapo Apartment with latent fingerprints found on personal documents that Ismoil was known to have handled. 497 12. The District Court properly instructed the jury on the element of knowledge with respect to Ismoil. 498 13. The District Court properly instructed the jury on the issue of aiding and abetting. 499 14. The District Court did not commit plain error by declining to dismiss the alternate jurors once the jury had retired to deliberate. 500 15. Ismoil was not denied his due process right to a fair trial by the cumulative effect of the District Court's errors during the trial because the District Court committed no trial errors with respect to Ismoil.