## Facts

- Somali pirates seized the German-flagged M/V *Marida Marguerite* on the high seas in May 2010, held the crew hostage, and obtained a multimillion-dollar ransom.
- After the vessel was brought into Somali territorial waters, Mohammad Saaili Shibin boarded and acted as an English-speaking ransom negotiator; evidence indicated he also participated in mistreatment of hostages.
- Somali pirates seized the U.S. sailing vessel S/V *Quest* on the high seas in February 2011 with four U.S. citizens aboard.
- During communications with the U.S. Navy, the pirates stated they took vessels and hostages to Somalia and used an English-speaking negotiator for ransom demands, identifying Shibin as that negotiator.
- As naval forces attempted to prevent the pirates from reaching Somali waters, the pirates killed all four American hostages aboard the *Quest*.
- Shibin was later arrested in Somalia, transferred to U.S. custody, brought to the Eastern District of Virginia, convicted by a jury on 15 counts, and sentenced to multiple life terms.
- At trial, an FBI agent testified to statements made by a Somali-speaking witness through an interpreter; the interpreter did not testify.

## Issues

1. Whether U.S. courts had subject-matter jurisdiction to prosecute aiding and abetting piracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1651 when the defendant’s facilitative acts occurred in Somali territorial waters or on land rather than on the high seas.
2. Whether the district court lacked personal jurisdiction because the defendant was allegedly forcibly seized abroad and brought to the United States.
3. Whether the United States could prosecute non-piracy offenses connected to the *Marida Marguerite* incident based on extraterritorial jurisdiction principles and the relevant federal statutes.
4. Whether admitting an FBI agent’s testimony recounting interpreted statements violated the Confrontation Clause because the interpreter did not testify.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed all convictions and the sentence.
- The court held that facilitating high-seas piracy can fall within piracy “under the law of nations” as incorporated by § 1651, even if the facilitator’s conduct occurs off the high seas.
- The court held personal jurisdiction was proper under the Ker–Frisbie doctrine because the manner of the defendant’s appearance before the court did not bar prosecution absent a treaty violation or sufficiently outrageous government conduct.
- The court upheld jurisdiction over non-piracy maritime offenses tied to the *Marida Marguerite* incident, relying on statutory extraterritorial reach and recognized jurisdictional bases for serious piracy-related crimes.
- The court rejected the Confrontation Clause challenge, treating the interpreter as a language conduit and attributing the translated statements to the original declarant.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1651, piracy incorporates international law definitions, including liability for intentionally facilitating high-seas piracy; the facilitator’s acts need not themselves occur on the high seas when the underlying piracy does.
- Aiding-and-abetting liability (18 U.S.C. § 2) supports prosecuting those who contribute to piracy’s execution, including ransom negotiation and related support connected to high-seas seizures.
- Under Ker–Frisbie, a federal court may try a defendant regardless of how the defendant was brought into the forum, absent a violated extradition arrangement or extreme government misconduct that would bar prosecution.
- Federal statutes addressing hostage-taking and violence against maritime navigation may apply extraterritorially when Congress so provides and when internationally recognized jurisdictional bases (including protective and universal jurisdiction concepts for piracy-related conduct) support prosecution.
- For Confrontation Clause purposes, where an interpreter functions as a neutral translator, the translation does not create a separate testimonial declarant requiring the interpreter’s presence at trial; confrontation focuses on the underlying speaker.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit sustained broad U.S. prosecutorial authority over piracy and closely related maritime crimes by holding that intentional facilitation connected to high-seas hijackings is punishable as piracy, that forcible transfer does not defeat personal jurisdiction absent exceptional circumstances, and that interpreter-mediated statements may be admitted without calling the interpreter when the interpreter serves as a language conduit.


United States v. Shibin, 722 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2013)