Opinion ID: 783616
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Government's References to Hakim's Muslim Faith

Text: 32 Most of the government's references to Hakim's faith occurred during examination of Boone. Boone explained that he had met Hakim while attending a spiritual class, and they ultimately became business partners at Boone's Moving: 33 Q. Would you describe for the jury ... your relationship with the defendant. 34 A. Yes. We were very close friends. As a matter of fact, spiritually, we was — we used to — we used to go to Jumal, which is our spiritual classes together. 35 Q. All right. When you say spiritual, what particular branch of religion do you subscribe to? 36 A. Islam — Muslims. 37 Q. Muslims? 38 A. Right. 39 Q. So you attended spiritual classes together? 40 A. Right. 41 Q. What role if any, did he play in the classroom setting? 42 A. He was very intelligent, he was the Eman [sic], that was, like, a head priest. 43 Q. Head priest. 44 A. Yes. 45 . . . 46 Q. Now I want to explore his role as Eman [sic] — I believe as you call it — and what position is that now in the Muslim faith? 47 A. That would be, like, head position to — like a teacher in the class. In other words, he would be the head man of the Jumal, he would read the Koran and explain to us, different scenarios in the book. And he would make prayer and stuff like that, lead the prayer. 48 Q. Was he able to do this in English or Arabic? 49 A. Both — both [A247-48.] 50 . . . 51 Q. Why did the two of you agree on that particular arrangement in terms of the duties that each of you would perform [in the business?]. 52 A. Well, see, Khalil's educational background was strong and he had been, basically, scholarships he had and stuff like that. . . . 53 . . . 54 Q. Is it fair to say, you trusted him to handle the money? 55 A. Exact. 56 Q. And why did you have such trust in him? 57 A. I looked up to Khalil, I looked up to him a lot and — 58 Q. Tell the jury why? 59 A. Spiritually, he — spiritually, I looked up to Khalil very a lot, because he was an idol for me. I mean, I never had nobody to really help me come through life, but I never put — put trust in nobody, but I put trust in him, because I looked up to Khalil very — so much — I looked up to him. 60 [A252.] 61 During the government's closing arguments, the prosecutor passed around Hakim's passport, noting that he had traveled to Saudi Arabia: 62 Now, [Boone] told you that he had met the defendant, he had known him for about ten years, they were both members of the same religious community, Muslims. The defendant occupied the role of Iman, the spiritual lead of the congregation and that he looked up to him, he admired him. He said, he was a teacher, he was the leader. 63 And as you will see from the defendant's passport and I — I urge you to take the time to look at this passport, not only from the standpoint of identification, but the facial hairs that was [sic] described by Seqora Ward and the skin tone color. But you may remember that I asked the question of Mr. Boone, he's the spiritual leader? Yes. He speaks Arabic and English. And if you will look in the passport, you will notice that in 1996, the defendant visited Saudi Arabia and there are a number of other stamps in the passport, all showing that he's a worldly man, he's well traveled. 64 Of course, a person like Melvin Boone — from a family of twenty-one children, someone who cut grass, saved $1200 to try to start a business on his own, someone with no world travel, none of the worldly experiences that this defendant would have, of course Melvin Boone would respect a man like this. 65 [A475.] 66 Hakim argues that these references have no relation to the crime with which he was being charged: bank robbery. Boone was brought to the stand to identify Hakim as the second robber in the surveillance photograph. As such, Hakim maintains that the prosecution had only to establish that Boone was able to identify Hakim; testimony that he had known Hakim for 10 years would have been sufficient. Hakim therefore contends that the government elicited the testimony about his faith in an attempt to peg him as a potential terrorist in the minds of the jurors and that such use of race or ethnicity is improper. See, e.g., Moore v. Morton, 255 F.3d 95, 113 (3d Cir.2001)(holding that where the prosecutor suggested that the fact that the black defendant was married to a white woman, allegedly showing his preference for white women, made it more likely he had raped the white victim, [r]acially or ethnically based prosecutorial arguments have no place in our system of justice.). 67 As noted above, because Hakim's lawyer did not object to the references to Hakim's faith at trial, we review the question whether the government violated Hakim's right to a fair trial for plain error. As Hakim points out, there are a handful of cases in which Courts of Appeals have remanded a matter for a new trial on the basis of the prosecutor's reference to a defendant's race or ethnicity, notwithstanding the failure of defense counsel to object at trial. In United States v. Doe, 903 F.2d 16 (D.C.Cir.1990), for example, the Court determined that the defendant, a Jamaican, had been deprived of the right to a fair trial, despite the fact that defense counsel had not raised an objection at trial, because the prosecutor made references to the fact that the retail drug market in Washington D.C. had been taken over by Jamaicans, thereby suggesting that it was more likely that the defendant was guilty of the drug sales with which he had been charged. Although the government argued that these references were fleeting and insignificant, the Court concluded that the fairness, integrity [and] public reputation of judicial proceedings were seriously affected. Id. at 26. 3 Similarly, in United States v. Cabrera, 222 F.3d 590 (9th Cir.2000), the Court found that the government's references to the drug market falling under the control of Cuban dealers, its suggestion that the Cubans were flight risks, and its description of how Cubans tended to package their drugs, were plain error where defendant was also Cuban. See also Withers v. United States, 602 F.2d 124, 125 (6th Cir.1979)(holding that prosecutor's reference to the fact that not one white witness has produced contradictory evidence was plain error). 68 While we find the government's mention of Hakim's religion disturbing, we conclude that Hakim cannot demonstrate that it amounted to plain error. This is primarily because the government offers a plausible explanation for why it made these references to Hakim's faith: it wanted to demonstrate that Boone respected Hakim and had no incentive to lie about his identification. The fact that the government offered this permissible explanation and that it never directly drew the link between Hakim's faith and the events of 9/11 distinguish this case from Doe and Cabrera, in which the government offered no such explanation and drew direct links between the defendants' race or ethnicity and the crimes with which they were charged. 69 To meet his burden on plain error review, Hakim would have to show that the government's actions seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997)(quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)), a showing difficult to make when there is a permissible explanation for the government's conduct. He has not made it here, hence we are constrained to reject Hakim's contention that these actions violated his right to a fair trial. 70 Despite so holding, we note that the government's explanation for its references to Hakim's faith, and even more so for its showing the jury Hakim's passport to demonstrate that he had traveled to Saudi Arabia, is by no means compelling. We do not reverse given the plain error standard of review, but we are troubled that the government, by making the references so soon after 9/11, needlessly made this case close. 71 The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.