United States Court of Appeals - How Appealing

222 Pages·2008·0.88 MB·English

RECORD NO. 06-4494
IN THE
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI,
Appellant.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria
The Honorable Leonie M. Brinkema, United States District Judge
______________________
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES
______________________
Chuck Rosenberg
United States Attorney
Eastern District of Virginia
David J. Novak Kevin R. Gingras
David Raskin Attorney
David B. Goodhand Appellate Section,
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Criminal Division
2100 Jamieson Avenue U.S. Department of Justice
Alexandria, Virginia 22314 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
[phone] Telephone Washington, DC 20530
[phone] Facsimile [phone] Telephone
[phone] Facsimile
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i-viii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix-xx
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
II. THE OFFENSE CONDUCT .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Usama Bin Laden And Al Qaeda.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
B. The Planes Operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Prospective Pilots Are Selected And Travel
to the United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Moussaoui Is Selected And Seeks Flight
Training In Malaysia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Pilot Hijackers Receive Overseas Money
Transfers And Take Flight Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Al Qaeda Sends Another Hijacker Pilot To
The United States.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Al Qaeda Sends Moussaoui To The United States. . . . 13
6. Moussaoui Aborts Flight Training And Inquires
About Jet Simulator Training.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Non-Pilot Hijackers Arrive In The United States. . . . . 16
8. Al Qaeda Sends Moussaoui Additional Funds
And He Readies For The Operation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Al Qaeda Tries To Send An Additional Hijacker. . . . . 20
10. Moussaoui Travels To Minnesota For Simulator
Training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. Moussaoui Is Arrested And Lies To Conceal The
Operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12. The Hijackers Buy Airline Tickets And
Make Final Preparations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
13. September 11, 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
C. Moussaoui’s Testimony. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Moussaoui In Afghanistan And Malaysia.. . . . . . . . . . 29
2. Moussaoui In The United States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A. Moussaoui Is Found Competent And Proceeds Pro Se.. . . . . 36
B. Moussaoui’s 2002 Attempt To Plead Guilty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
C. Revocation of Moussaoui’s Right to Proceed Pro Se .. . . . . . 46
D. The Guilty Plea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
1. Moussaoui Indicates He Wants To Plead. . . . . . . . . . . 48
2. The Statement Of Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
ii
3. The Pre-Plea Ex Parte Proceeding.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4. The Public Rule 11 Proceeding .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
E. The Sentencing Proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
I. MOUSSAOUI’S GUILTY PLEA WAS VALID AND
NEED NOT BE DISTURBED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
A. The District Court Did Not Plainly Err In Accepting
Moussaoui’s Knowing And Voluntary Guilty Plea.. . . . . . . . 65
1. Standard Of Review.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2. Applicable Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
a. Conspiracy Law And The Indictment. . . . . . . . . 70
b. Moussaoui Received The Indictment And
Discussed It With Counsel And The District
Court.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
c. Moussaoui Carefully Reviewed And Signed
The Statement Of Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
d. The District Court Complied With Rule 11 At
The Guilty Plea Hearing, Again Informing
Moussaoui Of The Charges In The Indictment.. 79
e. Moussaoui’s Post-Plea Comments Do Not
Affect The Validity Of His Guilty Plea.. . . . . . . 82
iii
f. The District Court Properly Advised Moussaoui
Of The Possible Penalties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
g. Any Alleged Defects In The Plea Do Not
Constitute “Plain Error”.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
B. The District Court Correctly Found No “Reasonable Cause”
To Hold A Competency Hearing Before Taking
Moussaoui’s Plea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
1. Standard of Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
2. Applicable Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
II. MOUSSAOUI’S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY HIS
GUILTY PLEA AND ARE WITHOUT MERIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
A. The Constitutional Claims Are Barred By Moussaoui’s
Knowing And Voluntary Guilty Plea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
B. In Any Event, Moussaoui’s Fifth And Sixth Amendment
Claims Fail On The Merits.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
1. CIPA.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
2. Relevant District Court Proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
a. The Initial Appearance And Arraignment.. . . . 116
b. The District Court’s Protective Order.. . . . . . . 117
c. First Pretrial Conference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
iv
d. The Motion For Moussaoui’s Personal Access
To Classified Material, If Allowed To Proceed
Pro Se. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
e. The Faretta Hearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
f. The Pro Se Motions Regarding Mr. Freeman.. 122
g. The Absence Of Additional Willing Standby
Counsel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
h. The Government’s Discovery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
i. The Pro Se Motions For Personal Access To
Classified Discovery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
j. The Aborted Guilty Plea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
k. Moussaoui’s Motion For Access To Enemy
Combatant Witnesses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
l. The Defendant’s Refusal To Attend CIPA
Hearings.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
m. No Further Challenge To The Protective
Order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
n. Resolution Of The Appeal And Moussaoui’s
Guilty Plea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
a. Standard Of Review.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
b. There Was No CIPA-Related Error.. . . . . . . . . 134
c. There Was No Constitutional Error.. . . . . . . . . 140
v
i. There Was No Deprivation Of The
Right To Counsel.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
ii. There Was No Deprivation Of The
Right To Be Present.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
iii. There Was No Due Process Violation.. . 149
(a) Moussaoui Did Not Have A
Constitutional Right Personally
To Obtain Material Exculpatory
Information Before Pleading
Guilty Because A Conviction
Pursuant To A Guilty Plea Rests
On The Defendant’s Own
Admissions, Not The
Government’s Evidence. . . . . . . . 150
(b) Moussaoui Knew The Substance
Of The Alleged Exculpatory
Material, Despite Restrictions
On His Access To It. . . . . . . . . . . 156
(c) Moussaoui Would Have Had
CIPA Substitutes For Any
Exculpatory Information Had
He Gone To Trial. . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
(d) The Plea Was Not Rendered
“Uncounselled” Because The
Information At Issue Was Not
Disclosed To Moussaoui.. . . . . . . 161
(e) The Government’s Post-Guilty
Plea Disclosures Regarding
Interrogation Recordings Are
Irrelevant To An Assessment Of
vi
The Propriety Of Moussaoui’s
Guilty Plea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
iv. There Was No Violation Of The Right
To Self-Representation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
v. There Were No Choice Of Counsel
Violations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
III. MOUSSAOUI’S SENTENCING CLAIM IS BASELESS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
A. The Sentencing Proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
1. The Jury Proceedings Under The FDPA. . . . . . . . . . . 181
2. The District Court’s Sentencing Hearing. . . . . . . . . . 186
B. Standard Of Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
C. Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188
1. Moussaoui’s Life Sentence Was Not Dictated By
Either The Jury’s Finding That He Was Death
Eligible Or 18 U.S.C. § 3594.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
2. The Invited Error Doctrine Bars Any Claim That
The Jury’s Decision Not To Impose The Death
Penalty Incorrectly Bound The District Court To
Impose Life In Prison On Counts One, Three And
Four. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
3. Moussaoui Has Waived Any Challenge To His
Sentence On Counts One, Three And Four By
Agreeing At The Sentencing Hearing That Life
Imprisonment Was A “Proper Sentence”.. . . . . . . . . . 195
vii
4. Moussaoui Cannot Argue That His Waivers
Resulted From An Improper Capital Sentencing
Proceeding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
5. Moussaoui Identifies No Other Reason To Excuse
The Waiver Of His Sentencing Claim.. . . . . . . . . . . . 198
CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
viii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page
Beck v. Angelone, 261 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67, 105
Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970). . . . . . . . . . 67-68, 105, 109-110, 153
Brown v. State of Md, 618 F.2d 1057 (4th Cir. 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105, 109
Bryson v. Ward, 187 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 1999).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95, 99
Burket v. Angelone, 208 F.3d 172 (4th Cir. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Cent. Intelligence Agency v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159 (1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136, 142
Childress v. Johnson, 103 F.3d 1221 (5th Cir. 1997).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40, 94
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Ferrara v. United States, 456 F.3d 278 (1st Cir. 2006).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Fields v. Att’y Gen. of Md., 956 F.2d 1290 (4th Cir. 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . 105, 110
ix