Opinion ID: 4657163
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Recorded Statements to Police

Text: The Government also asks this Court to review an order entered October 21, 2019, regarding Hamzeh’s post-arrest statements. Most of the order deals with admission of Hamzeh’s evidence based on the rule of completeness, not exclusion of the Government’s evidence. To the extent the Government seeks review of the admission of Hamzeh’s evidence, this Court is without jurisdiction to review those rulings. See 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (allowing appeal by the Government “from a decision or order of a district court suppressing or excluding evidence”). We conﬁne our review to the two decisions within that order excluding the Government’s evidence. First, the court excluded the Government’s proposed excerpt about Hamzeh’s passports and history of traveling abroad. It did so based on prior exclusions in the order dated No. 19-3072 15 October 16, 2019, which found inadmissible similar conversations about traveling abroad to commit an attack. In so doing, it stated its prior rulings made the post-arrest statement “no longer relevant.” Second, the court excluded statements Hamzeh made to a federal agent after his arrest about his conversations with a Muslim religious leader about whether to attack the Masonic center. Law enforcement asked Hamzeh whether he would have committed the attack had the religious leader said it was okay. The court found the exchange too speculative and “irrelevant” to the entrapment defense and the oﬀense with which he is charged. These rulings fall victim to the same evidentiary errors as the rulings regarding recorded conversations with the informants (found in the order entered October 16, 2019). The evidence is not oﬀered to prove Hamzeh actually would carry out the attacks abroad or domestically. Instead, it was oﬀered to show Hamzeh’s predisposition to obtain the ﬁrearms. The evidence is relevant to predisposition and should be reweighed under Rule 403.