## Facts

- Defendants were prosecuted in federal court for offenses arising from the August 7, 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
- Two defendants relevant to this appeal were arrested abroad and questioned while held by foreign authorities: one in Kenya and one in Pakistan.
- U.S. officials conducted interviews overseas and provided an “Advice of Rights” form stating, in substance, that the suspect could remain silent, statements could be used in a U.S. court, silence could not be used against him in a U.S. court, he could stop answering at any time, and he would have a right to counsel in the United States.
- An Assistant United States Attorney also delivered oral warnings during the overseas questioning.
- The defendants made incriminating statements and moved to suppress, arguing defective Miranda warnings and Fifth Amendment violations.
- One defendant also argued that harsh confinement conditions rendered his statements involuntary.
- The district court largely denied suppression and, in managing the suppression litigation, reopened proceedings for further hearings on one motion and allowed another defendant to withdraw his suppression motion without prejudice to renewal.
- After convictions, defendants appealed on Fifth Amendment and related grounds focused on the admissibility of the overseas statements and the district court’s handling of suppression proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether the overseas “Advice of Rights” form and accompanying oral warnings satisfied Miranda requirements (assuming Miranda obligations applied) and otherwise complied with the Fifth Amendment.
2. Whether a defendant’s overseas statements were involuntary under the Fifth Amendment due to conditions of confinement and interrogation circumstances.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion or violated constitutional rights by (a) reopening suppression proceedings for additional hearings and (b) permitting withdrawal of a suppression motion without prejudice to renewal and proceeding thereafter.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings and rejected the Fifth Amendment challenges.
- The court held that the oral warnings fulfilled, and the written “Advice of Rights” substantially complied with, any Miranda-related obligations applicable to the overseas interrogations, and admission of the statements did not violate the Fifth Amendment.
- The court held that the challenged statements were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances despite adverse confinement conditions.
- The court held that reopening a suppression ruling to conduct further hearings was within the district court’s discretion.
- The court held that allowing withdrawal of a suppression motion without prejudice to renewal, and the subsequent course of proceedings, did not violate the defendant’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights.

## Legal Principles

- When evaluating custodial statements obtained overseas by U.S. officials from suspects held by foreign authorities, a court may assume arguendo that Miranda applies and then assess whether the warnings given conveyed the core advisements.
- Miranda compliance may be satisfied by warnings that effectively communicate the right to remain silent, that statements may be used in a U.S. court, the right to counsel (as applicable), and the right to stop questioning; substantial compliance can suffice where the essential protections are conveyed.
- Voluntariness under the Fifth Amendment is determined under the totality of the circumstances; adverse confinement conditions alone do not render statements involuntary absent coercion sufficient to overbear the suspect’s will.
- A district court has broad discretion to manage suppression litigation, including revisiting prior suppression rulings to conduct additional hearings when appropriate.
- Permitting a suppression motion to be withdrawn without prejudice to renewal does not itself violate constitutional rights where the defendant retains an opportunity to litigate admissibility and no governmental deprivation of a fair process is shown.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld admission of incriminating statements obtained during overseas custodial questioning, concluding that the warnings given substantially satisfied any Miranda obligations and that the statements were voluntary, and it further ruled that the district court’s management of the suppression proceedings fell within permissible discretion without violating the defendants’ constitutional rights.


In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr. (Fifth Amendment Challenges), 552 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2008)