Opinion ID: 781722
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Murad's Alleged Request for a Lawyer

Text: 222 Murad contends that he queried FBI agents onboard the plane, where is the lawyer? and then informed them that he would speak after the aircraft landed in the United States, thereby asserting his Fifth Amendment right to silence and his Sixth Amendment right to a lawyer. Murad Br. at 61-68. Although Murad concedes that he did not raise this argument before the trial court, he nonetheless argues that, even under plain error review, the alleged error is sufficiently serious to warrant reversal of his conviction or at least vacatur of the judgment and a new trial. 223 Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(f) (Rule 12(f)), [f]ailure by a party to raise defenses or objections or to make requests which must be made prior to trial ... shall constitute waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver. 55 See also United States v. Crowley, 236 F.3d 104, 110 (2d Cir.2000); United States v. Schwartz, 535 F.2d 160, 163 (2d Cir. 1976). Murad contends that we may review this newly raised argument for suppression of his statement for plain error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b). We disagree. Under Rule 12(f) a district court may excuse waiver of a pretrial suppression argument only for cause shown. Likewise, we will find complete waiver of a suppression argument that was made in an untimely fashion before the district court unless there is a showing of cause. See United States v. Wilson, 11 F.3d 346, 353 (2d Cir.1993) (holding that the failure to make a suppression motion prior to the deadline set by the trial court constitutes a complete waiver where there is no reasonable excuse); United States v. Howard, 998 F.2d 42, 52 (2d Cir.1993) (holding that the failure to file a suppression motion on time in district court constitutes waiver [a]bsent a demonstration of cause). A strategic decision by counsel not to pursue a claim, inadvertence of one's attorney, and an attorney's failure to timely consult with his client are all insufficient to establish cause. See United States v. Forrester, 60 F.3d 52, 59 (2d Cir.1995) (holding that counsel's inadvertence does not establish cause); United States v. Yu-Leung, 51 F.3d 1116, 1122 (2d Cir.1995) (holding that a strategic decision not to object to the admission of evidence waives defendant's right to appeal the admission); Howard, 998 F.2d at 52 (holding that an attorney's failure to consult his client in timely manner was insufficient to show cause). 224 In the instant case, Murad does not explain why he waited until his appeal before making these suppression arguments. Indeed, Murad's attorney raised two other grounds for suppression during the lengthy pre-trial suppression proceedings. Furthermore, Murad filed an affidavit reciting his allegations, 56 testified at the hearing, 57 and had an opportunity during the hearing to cross-examine the FBI agents who interviewed him on the plane as well as the Arabic interpreter who was present on the plane when Murad was read his rights. In sum, Murad had ample opportunity to raise and develop this argument before the District Court and he has not provided, much less established, any reasonable excuse for his failure to so. Accordingly, we hold that Murad has waived this argument.