ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
_________________________________________________________________
No.
_________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
________________________________________________________________
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
_________________________________________________________________
A.J. Kramer
Federal Public Defender
Sandra G. Roland
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
625 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 550
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 208-7500
District Court
Cr. No.
CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES
Pursuant to Circuit Rule 28(a)(1), Defendant-Appellant, Mohammad Hassan xxxxxxxxxx, hereby states as follows:
A. Parties and Amici:
The parties below and to this appeal are Defendant-Appellant, Mohammad Hassan xxxxxxxxxx, and Plaintiff-Appellee, The United States of America. There are no intervenors or amici.
B. Rulings Under Review:
This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court (Honorable Royce C. Lamberth), dated March 6, 1991, adjudging appellant guilty after a jury trial on charges of Fraud In Connection With Identification Documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(5) (counts one and two) and charges of Fraud And Misuse Of Visas in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1546(a) (counts three and four). In this appeal, appellant seeks review of the district court's rulings made on October 23, 1990 and October 24, 1990, denying appellant's motions for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's case and at the close of all the evidence). In addition, appellant seeks review of the district court's admission of evidence on October 24, 1990.
C. Related Cases:
There are no related cases and this case has not previously been before this Court.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii
STATUTES AND RULES 1
JURISDICTION 1
ISSUES PRESENTED 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
A. Proceedings Below 2
B. Statement Of Facts 3
i. The Government's Evidence Of Mr. xxxxxxxxxx's Conduct 3
ii. The Government's Evidence That Mr. xxxxxxxxxx Possessed A Document-Making Implement 9
a. The Seven-Piece Stamp 9
b. The Single-Piece Stamp 11
iii. The Government's Evidence That A Visa Stamp Is An "Identification Document" 11
C. The Defense Case 13
i. The Defense Evidence Concerning The Two Stamps 13
ii. The Government's Cross-Examination of xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 18
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 22
ARGUMENT
I. THE EVIDENCE OF A VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(5) WAS INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO PROVE AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE SINCE A VISA STAMP IS NOT AN "IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENT" AS DEFINED IN THE
STATUTE 24
A. Standard Of Review 24
B. A Visa Stamp Is Not An Identification Document As Defined In 18 U.S.C. 1028 25
II. THE EVIDENCE UNDERLYING COUNT THREE, CHARGING MR. xxxxxxxxxx WITH FORGING OR COUNTERFEITING A VISA, WAS INSUFFICIENT WHERE THE "COUNTERFEIT" WAS A FAINT, UNREADABLE SMEAR OF INK, AND WHERE THE IMPRESSION WAS PRINTED ON A PLAIN PIECE OF PAPER RATHER THAN ON A PASSPORT, AS A "VISA" MUST BE 31
A. Standard Of Review 31
B. The Evidence That Mr. xxxxxxxxxx Made A "Counterfeit Visa" Was Insufficient To Sustain A Conviction Under 18 U.S.C. 1546(a) 32
i. The Faint Impression Of A Visa Stamp Was Insufficient To Sustain A Conviction For Making a Counterfeit Visa 32
ii. The Impression Found On The Paper To Which The Seven-Piece Stamps Were Glued Was Not A Counterfeit "Visa" Because It Was Not Printed In A Passport, As A "Visa" Must Be 34
III. MR. xxxxxxxxxx'S TRIAL WAS RENDERED UNFAIR BY THE ADMISSION OF A LETTER WRITTEN BY MR. xxxxxxxxxx'S BROTHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVING MR. xxxxxxxxxx'S GUILT BY ASSOCIATION 38
A. Standard Of Review 38
B. The Letter Written By Mr. xxxxxxxxxx's Brother Was Irrelevant To Any Issue In Mr. xxxxxxxxxx's Trial and Was An Improper And Prejudicial Attempt To Prove Mr. xxxxxxxxxx's Guilt By Association 38
CONCLUSION 47
CERTIFICATE OF LENGTH 48
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 48
TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES
CASES
Hinton v. United States, 424 F.2d 876 (D.C. Cir. 1969) 40
Jackson v. VBxwy⧜u/yEn7?Ä2uK;/WT>ɋkbpzrO˩
OXxM%;$|rTǾd3fvЫ
-N^p/>n73$芸2_MHv#)9Ғmvł%`FB2.\b9ԍ3Ύg[}kX(U.Y8}Wtkc% uo/1%-3%ύ!D[s4j[Tߐ7v"L,\h/TВy~ΕyXPV2ƺ(/:{u=Z˹hPwgj/B^E[p;{
iĒؑ=3/wN ?t/c7j kM.]z'owhӌ4y&-z" 9s09ŋ4ō<K{4f;ݞ7hsuхr̵@)Lz<ɑ(T\ܕ}'z]:֏E
_EdTKÃ_AO?V g-{.Ԗ;E_SzdZs֍-7a{L(Ui/5j[q=CQYͦ6J*1
je#wAb?2'̐
SjLækCZ;kZx{sȜ6$.oFVJğv?ksy ь3;ӐDP^3E!'gSiߕ<
FYوla6:{"lÐ4EϵQm3aG9ߋwv(1Хա]16t6˃hoǞafCY8}Wthcô'z]:
[W;)h :|(nh72(0O[lE,!ft :YVա/ǾK !>v`v΅iub#/5g6{h#w=˘b!PYwޏ88ݢ[v
45i08<ԚN, K?䔾;xuj) flMH7
z)ygȚhߘaJ˘b2ofmEPgK7߁BhmǷV0d
½*&KzƜ3`ܗ'8+- ^;KzyEj0:ny_F
h9M2ڍ0$xgS
ɺǾofÑeԯdtcXH_8Mof
[)۞us:JKkj
(h7l%̖0]
[k.jEqВ+$}&ОS
ŵ.?Qn9/?pm
FGO˘[fmPkpݒ7}B*mǖ!3d
e&13Kz5}nܗ,8-;^Z;zzyӍ@ey/y_F
.or>'?ypƕg
LHÈ0hP;;$|kr?o]h-h
T\1iӏ_~fUؾgwkh68Ō/0ғCVjk;{'x8-4GY-