## Facts

- Nicholas Slatten and co-defendants Paul Slough, Evan Liberty, and Dustin Heard were private security contractors employed by Blackwater Worldwide Security providing security for the U.S. Department of State in Iraq.
- On September 16, 2007, members of Blackwater’s “Raven 23” team used heavy gunfire at Nisur Square in Baghdad, killing and injuring Iraqi civilians.
- The government’s theory was that Slatten fired an opening shot that killed the driver of a white Kia sedan, and it charged Slatten with first-degree murder.
- Slough, Liberty, and Heard were charged with multiple homicide-related counts (including voluntary manslaughter and attempted manslaughter) and a firearms count under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) based on use/discharge of a machine gun during crimes of violence.
- Hours after the incident, State Department investigators interviewed one of Slatten’s teammates and told him that if he was honest, nothing he said would be used against him.
- During that interview—and twice more later, under the same assurance—the teammate stated that he shot the Kia’s driver; other accounts, including from Iraqi police officers and other contractors, supported those statements.
- Before trial, Slatten moved to sever his case so he could introduce the teammate’s statements as exculpatory evidence; the district court denied severance after concluding the statements were inadmissible hearsay in the joint trial.
- After a joint trial, the jury convicted Slatten of first-degree murder and convicted Slough, Liberty, and Heard of multiple homicide-related counts and the § 924(c) machine-gun count; Slatten received life imprisonment, and the others received mandatory consecutive 30-year § 924(c) terms plus minimal additional time on the remaining counts.
- All four defendants appealed, challenging (among other things) jurisdiction under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), venue, sufficiency of the evidence, severance, and the constitutionality of the mandatory 30-year § 924(c) minimum as applied.

## Issues

1. Whether MEJA authorized federal criminal jurisdiction over Blackwater State Department contractors for conduct in Iraq.
2. Whether venue in the District of Columbia was proper for offenses committed abroad.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for a new trial based on post-trial developments.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions (including specific challenged counts).
5. Whether Slatten’s first-degree murder charge resulted from vindictive prosecution.
6. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Slatten’s motion to sever, where severance was necessary for him to present a co-defendant’s exculpatory statements.
7. Whether the mandatory 30-year minimum sentence for use of a machine gun under § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) was cruel and unusual punishment as applied to these defendants.

## Decision

- The court affirmed that MEJA supplied jurisdiction over the defendants’ conduct in Iraq.
- The court affirmed that venue in the District of Columbia was proper.
- The court affirmed the denial of a new-trial motion.
- The court rejected most sufficiency challenges, but vacated one attempted manslaughter count against Liberty for insufficient evidence.
- The court rejected Slatten’s vindictive prosecution claim.
- The court reversed Slatten’s first-degree murder conviction and remanded for a new, separate trial because denial of severance prevented Slatten from presenting significant exculpatory evidence.
- The court held the mandatory 30-year § 924(c) machine-gun sentences unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment as applied to Slough, Liberty, and Heard, vacated those sentences, and remanded for resentencing.

## Legal Principles

- MEJA authorizes federal prosecution for certain felony conduct committed abroad by qualifying persons connected to U.S. operations, including contractors supporting U.S. activities in a contingency setting, as defined by statute.
- For crimes committed outside any state or district, venue may be laid in a district authorized by federal venue statutes and related rules governing where defendants are first brought or prosecuted.
- A district court’s ruling on a new-trial motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion; relief generally requires showing material impact on the verdict.
- Evidence is sufficient if, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; if not, the conviction on that count must be vacated.
- Vindictive prosecution requires proof (or a triggering presumption) that increased charges were filed to punish a defendant for exercising a legal right; legitimate prosecutorial reasons defeat the claim.
- Severance may be required when a joint trial blocks a defendant from presenting materially exculpatory evidence that could be available in a separate trial, and the resulting prejudice is not cured by instructions.
- The Eighth Amendment permits proportionality review of noncapital sentences in rare cases; a mandatory minimum can be unconstitutional as applied when it is grossly disproportionate to the defendant’s conduct and produces an extreme sentencing result.

## Conclusion

United States v. Slatten held that MEJA and venue supported prosecution of Blackwater contractors for the Nisur Square shootings, but the D.C. Circuit ordered a new, separate trial for Slatten because the joint trial prevented him from presenting a teammate’s repeated admissions that the teammate shot the Kia’s driver, and it also vacated the co-defendants’ mandatory 30-year § 924(c) machine-gun sentences as cruel and unusual punishment as applied, remanding for resentencing.


United States v. Slatten, 865 F.3d 767 (2017)