Opinion ID: 781722
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Liberation Army Letter

Text: 197 Yousef contends that the District Court erred in admitting into evidence a letter found at his Manila apartment and further erred in failing to redact it. The letter at issue was found on a laptop computer recovered from the apartment and stated, in translation from the Arabic: 198 We, the Fifth Division of the Liberation Army under the command of Staff Lieutenant General Abu Bakr al-Makki, declare our responsibility for striking at some American targets in the near future in retaliation for the financial, political, and military support extended by the American government to the Jewish state, which occupies the land of Palestine. While the government of America is donating military planes to the Jewish State, the Jewish State continues its massacres in south Lebanon and is killing, torturing, and detaining our Palestinian brothers with American money, weapons, and ammunition, in addition to the support and blessing (to Israel) given by the U.S. Congress. The American people are quite aware of all of this. (Therefore), we will consider all American nationals as part of our legitimate targets because they are responsible for the behavior of their government and its foreign policies, for the policy of the government represents the will of the people. 199 We will also strike at French and British targets because of the arms embargo they imposed against the government of Bosnia and because of their undeclared collaboration with the Serbs against the Muslims. 200 We will also attack Swedish targets because they granted asylum to a woman who declared her animosity to Islam and the Muslims. By this kind of behavior, Sweden has become a protector of people who attack and slander the religion of the Muslims, their God, and their prophet. 201 Again, we warn the American government that if it does not stop its aid to Israel, then our retaliatory operations will continue, inside and outside America. Some of our operations will include attacks against American nuclear targets. We consider the American government an accomplice of Israel in the occupation of the land of Palestine and the aggression against its people. 202 Allah is Great and victory for the believers. 203 ATr. 4165-66. 204 Although Yousef's attorney-advisor 53 argued at trial that the prejudicial impact of the letter outweighed its probative value, ATr. 4147, he did not specifically object to the letter's admission into evidence. He did however state that he underst[ood] the government's argument certainly in terms of motive and how it certainly has probative value, but the question I would suggest ... [is] whether or not the entire content of the letter is necessary to establish that. ATr. 4147. Despite his suggestion that the entire contents of the letter should not be admitted, Yousef's advisor did not propose any specific redaction. In response to the defense's suggestion that the letter could be redacted, the Court stated, I think you can't do it halfway. You've got to do it the whole way. ATr. 4147. 205 Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 (Rule 403), relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. A District Court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence under Rule 403. United States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102, 106 (2d Cir.1982). We will reverse a District Court on this ground only if there is a clear showing that the court abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily or irrationally. United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 110 (2d Cir.1998) ( Salameh I ) (quoting United States v. Valdez, 16 F.3d 1324, 1332 (2d Cir.1994)). 206 Even where a district court has erred in admitting or excluding evidence under Rule 403, we will disregard the error if there is fair assurance that the jury's judgment was not substantially swayed by the error. Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946); see also United States v. Spell, 789 F.2d 143, 144 (2d Cir. 1986) (applying harmless error analysis to admission of evidence); Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a) (Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.). Finally, where the defendant has not objected to the admission of certain evidence at trial, we may reverse only if there has been plain error. See, e.g., United States v. Hourihan, 66 F.3d 458, 463 (2d Cir.1995) (Ordinarily, we review a district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. However, when a defendant fails to object at trial, we review only for plain error. (internal citations omitted)); Fed. R. Crim P. 52(b) (Plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court.).
207 Even assuming that the defense had expressly objected to admission of the letter, we cannot say that the District Court abused its discretion in admitting the Liberation Army letter. First, the probative value of the letter was high. It supported an inference that the defendants intended to commit imminent attacks on United States targets and made clear that the strike was motivated by America's support of Israel. 54 208 Second, the risks entailed by admission of the letter did not substantially outweigh its probative value. Although the letter contained threats against a number of other countries, these threats comprised a relatively small portion of the letter and were far less likely to influence the jury than were the threats against the United States, which were highly probative of the defendants' motives. 209 Moreover, we upheld the admission of similar evidence in Salameh I. In that case, we sustained the District Court's admission into evidence of materials — similar to the letter in the instant case — that detailed the motives of some of Yousef's co-conspirators for attacking the World Trade Center. Id. at 111. Those materials, including a document urging terrorist attacks on all alleged enemies of Islam, while potentially inflammatory, evidenced the conspiracy's motive and intent to bomb targets in the United States. Id. Likewise, in the instant case, the Liberation Army letter suggested a motive and intent to kill Americans in the very near future. Accordingly, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the letter.
210 Yousef also claims that we should find error in the District Court's failure to redact the letter. He implies that admission of the unredacted letter put before the jury evidence of a number of uncharged and unrelated crimes and threats — including threats against France, Britain, and Sweden, as well as threatened attacks against American nuclear facilities — in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) (Rule 404(b)). 211 Although Yousef did not expressly argue before the District Court that the letter should be redacted pursuant to Rule 404(b), even if the issue had been properly presented to the District Court, we would find no error in the Court's failure to redact the letter. Rule 404(b) provides in relevant part that 212 [e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. 213 While the letter provided evidence of other threats, its salient feature was the trumpeting of a motive for the crimes for which the defendants were indicted: retaliation against the United States for its support of Israel. Because Rule 404(b) expressly permits evidence that establishes motive, intent, or plan, and these permissible evidentiary uses of the letter outweighed any arguably impermissible use under Rule 403, we hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the letter without redaction. In any event, even if the letter had been improperly admitted without redaction, we conclude that any such error was harmless since the references to other targets were unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered during the trial. United States v. Rea, 958 F.2d 1206, 1220 (2d Cir.1992) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 214