Opinion ID: 781722
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Airline Bombing Case

Text: 469 To summarize our conclusions, with respect to the airline bombing trial we hold: 470 1. The District Court had jurisdiction over the defendants' extraterritorial conduct pursuant to federal law. 471 2. The District Court erred in partly basing its finding of jurisdiction over Yousef for the conduct at issue in Count Nineteen on the universality principle of customary international law because it improperly relied on the unsupported statements of commentators instead of the practice and customs of States in determining what crimes may be subject to prosecution under that principle. 472 3. The absence of jurisdiction over terrorist acts under the universality principle of customary international law does not preclude Yousef's prosecution under United States laws implementing the United States' obligations under the Montreal Convention. 473 4. Jurisdiction over Counts Twelve through Nineteen is consistent with the United States' obligations under the Montreal Convention and with the objective, protective, and passive personality principles of jurisdiction under customary international law. 474 5. Neither the exercise of jurisdiction over Yousef and Ismoil in the United States nor the conduct of their trials violated their constitutional rights to due process. 475 6. Venue for the airline bombing trial was proper in the Southern District of New York. 476 7. Yousef's argument based on the doctrine of specialty was waived because it was raised for the first time in his appellate reply brief. 477 8. Yousef was properly convicted on Count Fifteen because 18 U.S.C. § 2332 does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the Attorney General and because the District Court did not err in not charging the jury that it had to find intent to retaliate against the United States Government or its citizens in order to find the defendants guilty. 478 9. The District Court did not err in failing to conduct, sua sponte, a mid-trial voir dire of the jury regarding the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. 479 10. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Liberation Army letter or in declining to redact portions of it. 480 11. The District Court did not err in admitting into evidence Murad's April 12, 1995 confession to FBI agents. 481 12. Murad's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense was not violated inasmuch as he received adequate discovery from the Philippines to meet Sixth Amendment requirements and the District Court's jury charge on voluntariness was proper. 482 13. The District Court did not commit reversible error in using the bully example to illustrate the concepts of intent and circumstantial evidence. 483 14. There was more than sufficient evidence to sustain Yousef's attempt convictions on Counts Thirteen and Fourteen. 484 15. Defendants' remaining arguments pertaining to the airline bombing trial are without merit.