01-1653 U.S. v. Alwan

Listen to this article

“The evidence, which suggested the defendant was attempting to protect Hamas and Rezeq Saleh, came only in response and in answer to the defendant’s explanation. In the government’s case-in- chief, the evidence only explained the general nature of the grand jury investigation. Reference was again made to Hamas when the government presented evidence of the defendant’s refusal to testify on July 11, 2000. His refusal to testify after being granted immunity, however, is the very basis of the charge in this case. The defendant argues it was a violation of Fed. R. Evid. 403. His explanation is that the government’s Hamas evidence was intended ‘to brand Defendant with a huge scarlet “H,” to paint Defendant with provocative evidence [to characterize him] as a murderous, bloodthirsty Hamas terrorist seeking to protect his “buddies.”‘ That argument is colorful and imaginative, but we find no basis for it in the record. There was no abuse of discretion in the admission of the Hamas evidence.”

“Judge Castillo, who listened to the trial evidence and considered the cases cited by the defendant and the government (which need not be individually reviewed here), adopted the probation officer’s presentence report and made the finding that ‘in no uncertain terms’ the defendant’s refusal to testify ‘was an effort to obstruct an ongoing criminal investigation into potential criminal activities by various individuals and various organizations.’ The judge branded the defendant’s explanation of fearing for the safety of himself and his family and his explanation of his travel to the Middle East as perjurious. The trial judge’s view of the situation and his application of sec. 2J1.2 is fully sustained by a review of this record.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Castillo, J., Per Curiam.