United States v. El-Mezain
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
664 F. 3d 467 (2011)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
A federal jury convicted a corporate defendant, Holy Land Foundation (HLF), and five people associated with HLF (the fundraisers) (defendants) of conspiracy and substantive offenses for providing material aid and support to a designated terrorist organization, Hamas. The prosecution (plaintiff) alleged that through HLF, the fundraisers raised millions of dollars that were funneled to pro-Palestinian charitable entities in the West Bank and Gaza that were Hamas social institutions. Three of the documents (the PA documents) admitted at trial were seized by the Israeli military from the Palestinian Authority (PA), Palestine’s limited governing body. Two of the PA documents appeared to be on letterhead, but only one of them listed an author and date. The prosecution claimed that the PA documents had been prepared by the PA to describe its monitoring of Hamas’s associates. The district court admitted the PA documents under Federal Rule of Evidence 807, the residual exception to the hearsay rule, reasoning that the PA documents were analogous to public records that may be admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8). The fundraisers appealed, arguing in relevant part that the district court had erred by admitting the PA documents.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (King, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.