Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem was convicted in the District of Arizona on multiple counts arising from a 2015 attack on a contest in Garland, Texas, including Count One, conspiracy to transport firearms and ammunition in interstate commerce with intent to commit murder and aggravated assault under 18 U.S.C. § 371, and Count Three. The government's evidence showed that Kareem viewed violent ISIS propaganda, discussed attacking the Garland event, knew in advance that co-conspirators Simpson and Soofi intended to carry out the attack, took them shooting in the desert, trained them in weapons maintenance, purchased two firearms used in the attack, and possessed ammunition matching that recovered at the scene.
Kareem appealed his convictions and various post-judgment orders, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by admitting ISIS-related propaganda materials under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, that the evidence was insufficient to support Count One, that the government violated Brady v. Maryland, that ex parte and sealed filings including CIPA submissions violated due process, that jury instructions were erroneous, and that his untimely third motion for a new trial should have been equitably tolled. The Ninth Circuit addressed Count Five in a separate published opinion filed concurrently, reversing on insufficiency grounds.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed as to all remaining issues. On the evidentiary challenge, the court held that the ISIS-related materials, including the propaganda video Flames of War, were probative of Kareem's knowledge, intent, and state of mind relevant to Counts One and Three, that the district court reasonably found the evidence corroborated witness testimony and contextualized the charged conduct, and that clear jury instructions mitigated any risk of unfair prejudice, so there was no abuse of discretion or plain error.
The court rejected the sufficiency challenge to Count One, holding that a rational juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Kareem knowingly joined the conspiracy and intended to further its unlawful objectives. It also rejected the Brady claims, concluding the withheld materials were cumulative, speculative, or unrelated to the elements of Count One and therefore not favorable and material. The court upheld the striking of the untimely Rule 33 motion, found no basis for equitable tolling, and held that CIPA materials pertained exclusively to Count Five while unclassified sealed filings contained nothing favorable and material as to Count One.
The court found no plain error in the jury instructions as to Counts One and Three or in the district court's response to a jury question, and because no individual error warranted reversal, the cumulative error claim failed. Judge Collins concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part, stating he would affirm the judgment and orders in their entirety.
Key Takeaways
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed Kareem's convictions on the remaining counts, finding no reversible error in the evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of the evidence, Brady claims, sealed-filing procedures, or jury instructions.
- ISIS-related propaganda was properly admitted under Rule 403 because it was probative of knowledge, intent, and state of mind, and any unfair prejudice was mitigated by the district court's instructions.
- The Brady claims failed because the withheld materials were cumulative, speculative, or unrelated to the elements of the charged offenses and thus not material.
- Classified CIPA materials pertained exclusively to Count Five, which was reversed in a separate published opinion, and the unclassified sealed filings contained no favorable and material information as to Count One.
- Judge Collins concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part, stating he would have affirmed the district court's judgment and orders in their entirety.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the considerable deference given to district court Rule 403 rulings, showing that inflammatory propaganda can be admitted to prove knowledge, intent, and state of mind when it corroborates testimony and is accompanied by clear instructions. It also illustrates the high bar for Brady violations, which require a showing that withheld evidence was favorable and material, and confirms that multiple non-prejudicial errors do not collectively warrant reversal when each individual claim fails.