## Facts

- Tarek Mehanna, a U.S. citizen from Massachusetts, was indicted on four terrorism-related counts and three false-statement counts.
- The terrorism charges rested on two clusters of conduct: (1) a 2004 trip to Yemen to locate a terrorist training camp, and (2) later translation and online dissemination of jihadist and al-Qa’ida media.
- In 2004, Mehanna traveled from Boston to the UAE and then to Yemen with associates in an effort to find a training camp; after about a week, he returned home without locating one.
- Beginning in 2005, Mehanna translated Arabic-language materials into English and posted translations to an online forum that catered to sympathizers of al-Qa’ida and Salafi-jihadi views.
- The government introduced evidence that Mehanna circulated extremist propaganda, including graphic videos, to show intent, motive, and state of mind.
- After a 37-day jury trial in the District of Massachusetts, Mehanna was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment.
- Mehanna appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the constitutionality of applying the material-support statutes to his translation/dissemination activity, several evidentiary rulings, and his sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the terrorism-related convictions and the false-statement convictions.
2. Whether applying federal material-support statutes to Mehanna’s translation and dissemination of extremist media violated the First Amendment.
3. Whether admitting emotionally charged jihadist propaganda, including graphic videos, was an abuse of discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 despite limiting instructions.
4. Whether the district court erred in calculating and imposing a 210-month sentence, including terrorism-related adjustments.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence in full.
- The court held that the evidence permitted a rational jury to find the required conspiratorial agreements, intent, and knowing participation for the material-support and foreign-killing conspiracy counts, as well as the elements of the false-statement counts.
- The court rejected the First Amendment challenge, concluding the verdict rested on proscribable conduct (material support and conspiracies), not mere belief, independent advocacy, or protected association.
- The court upheld the challenged evidentiary rulings, finding the propaganda evidence probative of intent and motive and concluding the district court reasonably mitigated unfair prejudice through careful limits and repeated instructions.
- The court upheld the 210-month sentence, finding no reversible error in guideline application or the court’s consideration of the statutory sentencing factors.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, an appellate court views the trial record in the light most favorable to the verdict and does not reweigh credibility; the question is whether a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Material-support prohibitions may constitutionally reach coordinated provision of “services” or similar support to a designated foreign terrorist organization or terrorists, while independent advocacy remains protected under the First Amendment.
- Speech-related activity may be punished when it constitutes conduct integral to criminal activity, such as participation in a material-support conspiracy or attempt.
- Under Rule 403, a district court has substantial discretion to admit graphic or disturbing evidence when its probative value on intent, motive, or the nature of a charged conspiracy is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, particularly where limiting instructions are used.
- Sentences, including terrorism-related guideline adjustments, are upheld absent procedural error or substantive unreasonableness in light of the record and the statutory sentencing factors.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld Mehanna’s terrorism-related and false-statement convictions and his 210-month sentence, concluding that the trial evidence supported the jury’s findings, the material-support statutes were constitutionally applied to his conduct, the district court reasonably admitted probative propaganda evidence with limiting safeguards, and the sentence was properly imposed.


United States v. Mehanna, 735 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2013)