## Facts

- Rasmieh Yousef Odeh was arrested, convicted, and imprisoned in Israel in 1969–1970 for involvement in bombings, and later released in a prisoner exchange.
- In 1994, she applied for a U.S. immigrant visa and answered “no” to questions asking whether she had ever been arrested or convicted of a crime; she was admitted to the United States.
- Around 2004, she applied for naturalization and again denied, in writing and in an interview, ever having been arrested/detained or charged/convicted/sentenced, despite her Israeli conviction and imprisonment.
- In 2013, the government indicted Odeh under 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) for knowingly procuring naturalization contrary to law through material false statements about her criminal history.
- Odeh sought to introduce expert testimony that she suffered from PTSD due to alleged torture in Israeli detention, arguing it affected her subjective understanding of the immigration questions and whether she “knew” her answers were false.
- The district court excluded the PTSD expert testimony as an impermissible diminished-capacity defense, and admitted certified Israeli military-court records concerning her conviction.
- A jury convicted Odeh; she was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment and her citizenship was revoked as required by statute.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred, including under the right to present a complete defense, by categorically excluding PTSD expert testimony offered to negate the “knowledge of falsity” element in a § 1425(a) prosecution.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting certified Israeli conviction documents obtained through treaty-based procedures and under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded.
- The court held that the district court erred by applying a categorical rule barring PTSD expert testimony on the ground that § 1425(a) is a general-intent offense.
- The court directed the district court on remand to reconsider admissibility under ordinary evidentiary standards (including Rules 401–403 and 702), rather than excluding the evidence as a matter of law.
- The court rejected Odeh’s challenges to other evidentiary rulings, including admission of the Israeli conviction documents, and rejected her remaining sentencing challenges as meritless.

## Legal Principles

- A § 1425(a) prosecution based on false statements requires proof that the defendant made a false statement, knew it was false, the statement was material, and the defendant obtained citizenship as a result.
- Mental-health expert testimony is not categorically inadmissible in a general-intent prosecution when offered to negate a statutory mens rea component such as knowledge of falsity.
- A defendant’s right to present a complete defense permits relevant, otherwise admissible evidence that tends to negate an element of the offense, subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
- The admissibility of expert psychological testimony must be evaluated case by case under Rules 401–403 and 702, including relevance, reliability, and risk of unfair prejudice or confusion.
- Certified foreign conviction records obtained through treaty-based mechanisms may be admissible; generalized attacks on the fairness of a foreign legal system typically bear on weight rather than admissibility.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded because the district court improperly barred PTSD expert testimony through a blanket legal rule, requiring instead a fact-specific evidentiary analysis of whether the proffered testimony could negate knowledge of falsity under § 1425(a), while otherwise upholding the admission of certified Israeli conviction records and rejecting the remaining challenges.


United States v. Odeh, 815 F.3d 968 (6th Cir. 2016)