United States v. Rahman
189 F.3d 88 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The heightened evidentiary requirements of the Treason Clause do not apply to the crime of seditious conspiracy, as it is a distinct and lesser offense that does not require proof of allegiance. The First Amendment does not protect speech that constitutes a criminal agreement or solicitation to use force against the United States government.
Facts:
- Starting in 1989, followers of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, including El Sayyid Nosair and Clement Hampton-El, began organizing and conducting paramilitary and weapons training on Long Island, New York.
- On November 5, 1990, Nosair attended a speech by Rabbi Meir Kahane in a New York hotel and shot and killed him. During his escape, Nosair also shot and wounded two other individuals, including a postal police officer.
- After Nosair's arrest, searches of his property revealed notebooks describing plans to destroy the 'civilized pillars' of the 'enemies of Allah,' including their 'high world buildings.'
- Abdel Rahman, a blind Islamic cleric who arrived in the U.S. in 1990, preached to his followers that jihad against the United States was mandated, gave religious opinions (fatwas) sanctioning violent acts, and solicited the murder of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
- Members of Abdel Rahman's group, with his knowledge and encouragement, assisted in the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center.
- In the spring of 1993, other followers of Abdel Rahman planned a new series of bombings targeting the United Nations, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, and the federal building in Manhattan.
- To carry out the 1993 bombing plot, the conspirators scouted targets, acquired a 'safehouse' in Queens, purchased large quantities of diesel fuel and fertilizer, and were mixing the explosive materials when they were arrested.
Procedural Posture:
- Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and nine co-defendants were charged in an indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York with numerous offenses, including seditious conspiracy.
- The defendants' various pre-trial motions, including motions to sever and to suppress evidence, were denied by the district court.
- A nine-month jury trial was held, from January to October 1995.
- The jury returned verdicts finding all ten defendants guilty of seditious conspiracy and finding various defendants guilty on numerous other charges.
- The defendants were sentenced by the district court to terms ranging from 25 years to life imprisonment.
- The ten convicted defendants appealed their convictions and sentences to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a conviction for seditious conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, which punishes conspiracy to 'levy war' against the United States, violate the Treason Clause of the Constitution when the conviction is not supported by the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a conviction for seditious conspiracy does not violate the Treason Clause. The heightened evidentiary requirements of the Treason Clause are inapplicable to a prosecution for seditious conspiracy because it is a distinct and lesser offense than treason. The Treason Clause applies only to prosecutions for 'treason,' and the defendants were charged with the separate statutory offense of seditious conspiracy. The court reasoned that treason is fundamentally different because it requires a breach of allegiance owed to the United States, an element not required for seditious conspiracy. The court rejected the argument that allegiance is not a constitutional element of treason, holding that the concept of 'betrayal of allegiance' is integral to the historical and legal definition of treason. Because seditious conspiracy is a different and lesser offense, its prosecution is not bound by the Treason Clause's two-witness rule.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the government's ability to prosecute individuals for plotting war against the U.S. without needing to meet the stringent constitutional requirements for a treason charge. It clarifies that seditious conspiracy is a powerful statutory tool for addressing domestic terrorism and insurrectionary plots that fall short of the formal definition of treason. The court's distinction rests on the element of 'allegiance,' effectively creating a separate category of crime for subversive acts that do not involve a citizen's betrayal. This precedent makes it significantly easier for prosecutors to secure convictions in cases involving violent anti-government conspiracies, particularly those involving non-citizens or where the two-witness rule for treason cannot be met.
