United States v. Wright

Summary

The First Circuit vacated the defendant's conviction for conspiracy to provide material support to ISIS (18 U.S.C. § 2339B) because the jury instruction erroneously defined "coordination" as merely coordinating with the organization's strategy or tactics rather than with the organization itself, a constitutional error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court affirmed convictions for conspiracy to commit terrorism transcending national boundaries (18 U.S.C. § 2332b), obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to obstruct justice, finding sufficient evidence of overseas conduct and rejecting challenges to FISA surveillance, warrant searches, juror misconduct, and jury instructions on intent.

Holdings

1. The instruction erroneously allowed the jury to convict based on coordination with the strategy/tactics of ISIS rather than coordination with ISIS itself.
2. The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence that Wright acted at the direction of ISIS was not overwhelming.
3. The facial challenge fails because there are circumstances where warrantless surveillance is permissible.
4. The warrant, by cross-referencing Attachment A, authorized the off-site search of the devices.
5. No federal constitutional right to have custodial interrogation recorded.
6. The district court did not abuse its discretion; it dismissed the juror and made adequate inquiry.
7. The instruction was proper; it allowed inference from words and conduct and required consideration of all evidence.
8. The evidence was sufficient to show that the plot was coordinated with ISIS via Hussain.
9. The evidence was sufficient to show that the conspiracy involved conduct transcending national boundaries and that Wright knew of the overseas conduct.
10. The instruction was not erroneous; it properly defined conduct and intent.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the FISA Emergency Provision is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the search warrant authorized the search of electronic devices.
3. Whether the defendant had a constitutional right to a recorded interview.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion in handling juror misconduct.
5. Whether the permissive inference instruction on intent was erroneous.
6. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Count One conviction on the 'coordination' theory.
7. Whether the jury instruction on Count One defining 'coordination' was erroneous and, if so, whether the error was harmless.
8. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Count Four conviction.
9. Whether the jury instruction on Count Four was erroneous.

Disposition

affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded