Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Subeh

November 27, 2006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
MOHAMED SUBEH, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles J. Siragusa United States District Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

The defendant has been accused, by way of indictment, of two counts of making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2).*fn1 Now before the Court is the defendant's motion "for an Order dismissing the indictment pursuant to FR Crim P Rule 12 (b) (2) and for such other, further and different relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances." (Defendant's Notice of Motion, dated October 20, 2006, at 1.) For the reasons to be stated, the defendant's application is denied in all respects.

DISCUSSION

Count One of the indictment reads as follows: On or about the 23rd day of May, 2003, in the Western District of New York, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, to wit: an investigation into possible terrorist activities being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency of the Department of Justice of the United States, the defendant, MOHAMED SUBEH, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement and representation; that is, the defendant MOHAMED SUBEH, told a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a member of the Joint Terrorism Task Force sponsored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the defendant, MOHAMED SUBEH, did not want a man whose identity is known to the Grand Jury to leave the United States because the man whose identity is known to the Grand Jury would jeopardize his immigration status if he (the man whose identity is known to the Grand Jury) left the United States; when in point of fact, and as the defendant then and there well knew, the man whose identity is known to the Grand Jury was interested in becoming a suicide bomber in the country of Israel on behalf of the foreign terrorist organization Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, All of the above in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

Count Two of the indictment reads:

On or about the 23rd day of May, 2003, in the Western District of New York, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, to wit: an investigation into possible terrorist activities being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency of the Department of Justice of the United States, the defendant, MOHAMED SUBEH, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement and representation; that is, the defendant MOHAMED SUBEH, told a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a member of the Joint Terrorism Task Force sponsored by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that a man whose identity is known to the Grand Jury is leaving the United States because he (the man whose identity is known to the Grand Jury) was homesick and wanted to marry his fiancé[e]; when in point of fact, and as the defendant then and there well knew, the man whose identity is known to the Grand Jury was interested in leaving the United States because the man whose identity is known to the Grand Jury was interested in becoming a suicide bomber in the country of Israel on behalf of the foreign terrorist organization Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, All of the above in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2) To convict the defendant of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following five elements:

(1) that the defendant made a statement;

(2) that the statement was false and the defendant knew it was false;

(3) that the statement was made knowingly and willfully;

(4) that the statement was made within the jurisdiction of a federal agency; and

(5) the statement was material.

However, it is a defense to a charge of making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) that the statement in question was "literally true." This is commonly referred to as the"Bronston" defense. See Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973).

The purpose of the Bronston rule is to place the burden on the examiner to probe for details during the examination. The rule prevents an examiner from resolving ambiguities in the elicited ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.