Opinion ID: 787516
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Miscellaneous Challenges to Convictions

Text: 102 Hammoud raises several additional challenges to his convictions that may be addressed more briefly.
103 Count 71 of the indictment alleged that the Charlotte Hizballah cell was a racketeering enterprise, one of the purposes of which was the donation of illegally acquired funds to Hizballah. Count 72 of the indictment charged Hammoud and others with conspiracy to provide material support to a designated FTO. Count 72 included allegations regarding Hammoud's activities in Charlotte as well as Said Harb's involvement in procuring dual-use equipment in Canada. Hammoud argues that the Government (through its presentation of evidence and closing argument) and the district court (through its instructions to the jury) constructively amended the indictment by effectively combining counts 71 and 72 into a single charge. See United States v. Floresca, 38 F.3d 706, 710 (4th Cir.1994) (en banc) (A constructive amendment to an indictment occurs when either the government ..., the court ..., or both, broadens the possible bases for conviction beyond those presented by the grand jury.). 104 Counts 71 and 72 were clearly separate charges, and the district court properly instructed the jury as to each. During his closing argument, Hammoud's counsel argued that while the indictment charged a single conspiracy in count 72, the evidence supporting that count actually demonstrated the existence of two conspiracies — one in Canada, involving the procurement of equipment, and one in Charlotte. 13 In response to this claim, the Government argued in rebuttal that the evidence in support of count 72 established the existence of a single conspiracy. 105 During deliberations, the jury repeatedly asked questions about count 72, even after it had reached a verdict on all of the other counts, including count 71. In particular, the jury asked whether, in order to convict, it had to conclude that the Canadian activities and the Charlotte activities were part of the same conspiracy. In response, and apparently without objection from Hammoud, the district court repeated its instruction regarding single and multiple conspiracies. 106 Subsequently, the jury asked a question that neither the court nor the parties understood: Do we have to find one conspiracy or a conspiracy out of multiple utilizing only some of the manner and means of conspiracy. J.A. 3648 (internal quotation marks omitted). The response of the court, as recorded in the transcript, was equally confusing: You must find, in order to convict on Count 72, that there was a single conspiracy, not multiple conspiracies. Multiple conspiracies with a common goal. Not what was charged. Id. The first sentence is a correct instruction; the second and third sentences, however, arguably contradicted it. A short time later, the jury asked two additional questions: Is Count 72 that there's one single and only one conspiracy to be proved? and Does it necessarily have to include all of the matter and means of the conspiracy as alleged in the count? Id. at 3649 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court correctly answered the first question yes and the second question no. 107 Hammoud construes all of this discussion regarding count 72 as a discussion regarding counts 71 and 72, and he alleges that the district court improperly combined the two counts. As should be clear from the above discussion, this is not at all what happened. All of the questions from the jury concerned whether count 72 involved a single conspiracy or multiple conspiracies. Therefore, there was no constructive indictment.
108 Hammoud testified in his own defense, asserting that he supported the humanitarian work of Hizballah but not its terrorist activities. On cross-examination, the Government questioned Hammoud regarding his awareness of violent acts by Hizballah. Hammoud now asserts that such questions constituted fearmongering and violated his right to a fair trial. We conclude that there was no error here because the prosecutor's questions were intended to undermine Hammoud's claim that he supported only the humanitarian aims of Hizballah and that he disagreed with the violent tactics employed by Hizballah.
109 In his final challenge to his convictions, Hammoud asserts that the district court should not have allowed expert testimony regarding the possible aviation applications of equipment purchased in Canada by Said Harb and others, arguing that the sole purpose of such testimony was to instill[ ] fear and prejudice in a post-September 11 jury. Br. for Appellant Mohamad Y. Hammoud at 112. We agree with the Government that this testimony was relevant to prove the material support conspiracy charged in Count 72 of the indictment and was not unfairly prejudicial. 110 The admission of this testimony was not plain error.