For Your Data United States V. Yousef Representative Brief
September 15, 2019
Edit
United States v. Yousef case brief summary
327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003)
DISCUSSION
The appellate courtroom affirmed the judgments of the district courtroom except to the extent that 1 defendant's restitution requirements were modified to align alongside his indigent status, together with hence that for sure portions of the restitution social club would larn active exclusively upon a alter of fiscal circumstances.
***
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendants appealed from judgments of conviction for conspiracy to bomb 12 US of America commercial airliners inward Southeast Asia together with the Feb 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center inward New York City entered inward the US of America District Court for the Southern District of New York inward 2 form jury trials. Defendants too appealed from the denial of several post-judgment motions.DISCUSSION
- Inter alia, the courtroom held that the district courtroom had jurisdiction over defendants' extraterritorial bear nether federal law, fifty-fifty though the district courtroom erred inward partly basing its finding of jurisdiction over 1 accused on the universality regulation of customary international constabulary because it improperly relied on the unsupported statements of commentators instead of the exercise together with customs of States inward determining what crimes may live on dependent champaign to prosecution.
- However, the absence of jurisdiction over "terrorist" acts nether the universality regulation did non prevent prosecution nether US of America laws implementing the United States' obligations nether the Montreal Convention.
- Neither the exercise of jurisdiction over defendants inward the US of America nor the bear of their trials violated due process.
- As to the Trade Center bombing, because 1 accused did non asking counsel earlier whatever US of America official, the admission of his post-arrest statements to Filipino constabulary enforcement officers did non violate his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
- The district courtroom did non commit reversible mistake past times requiring the defense strength to gain their experts at the Daubert hearing.
The appellate courtroom affirmed the judgments of the district courtroom except to the extent that 1 defendant's restitution requirements were modified to align alongside his indigent status, together with hence that for sure portions of the restitution social club would larn active exclusively upon a alter of fiscal circumstances.
***
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.