## Facts

- Hassan Abu-Jihaad, a U.S. Navy signalman aboard the USS Benfold, had access to classified operational information about a Fifth Fleet battle group led by the USS Constellation during an early-2001 deployment.
- British authorities later recovered a “Battlegroup Document” from locations tied to Azzam Publications, containing detailed nonpublic operational data (routes, speeds, defenses, and vulnerabilities) about that battle group.
- Navy witnesses characterized the document’s contents as closely held, not obtainable from public sources, and significant to national defense because it could assist in planning attacks on U.S. naval forces.
- The prosecution’s case linking Abu-Jihaad to the document was circumstantial, relying on his access to the information, electronic communications with Azzam Publications, and timing/metadata connecting accounts and document creation.
- Evidence included emails in which Abu-Jihaad expressed support for violent attacks against U.S. forces, including praising the USS Cole bombing.
- After leaving the Navy, Abu-Jihaad made recorded statements interpreted by the government as coded references to providing military intelligence (“fresh meals”).
- A jury convicted Abu-Jihaad after a six-day trial of (1) willfully disclosing national defense information, 18 U.S.C. § 793(d), and (2) providing material support to terrorists by providing “personnel,” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, permitted a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Abu-Jihaad willfully disclosed “information relating to the national defense” to unauthorized persons, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(d).
2. Whether the evidence permitted a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Abu-Jihaad provided “material support or resources” in the form of “personnel,” knowing or intending it would be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, predicate terrorist offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 2339A.
3. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence or whether evidentiary rulings and claimed unfairness required a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.

## Decision

- The court denied the Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal.
- The court denied the Rule 33 motion for a new trial.
- The court held that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s findings on all elements of both offenses.
- The court found no manifest injustice and no evidentiary error, individually or cumulatively, warranting a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 29 motion, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and uphold the verdict unless no rational juror could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Circumstantial evidence is not disfavored and may, taken as a whole, support a criminal conviction.
- For 18 U.S.C. § 793(d), “national defense information” may be established by proof that the information is closely held and would be potentially damaging to the United States or useful to an enemy; the government need not prove actual harm.
- A jury may infer willfulness and knowledge under § 793(d) from a defendant’s training, position, access to classified material, and the context of communications with unauthorized recipients.
- Under Rule 33, a new trial is reserved for extraordinary circumstances where letting the verdict stand would result in manifest injustice; the court may weigh evidence but should not overturn a verdict unless the evidence heavily preponderates against it.
- Evidence bearing on intent, identity, and context may be admissible despite prejudicial potential where relevance is substantial and limiting instructions reduce unfair prejudice.

## Conclusion

The district court upheld Abu-Jihaad’s convictions for willfully disclosing national defense information and providing material support to terrorists, concluding that the government’s circumstantial proof allowed a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that no manifest injustice or reversible trial error justified post-verdict relief.


United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 600 F. Supp. 2d 362 (D. Conn. 2009)