Attorneys for three Twin Cities men serving decadeslong prison sentences for trying to join ISIS will challenge their 2016 murder conspiracy convictions in federal appeals court next month in one of the biggest ISIS recruitment cases in the country.
The attorneys also plan to argue that Abdirahman Daud, Mohamed Farah and Guled Omar should have been given sentences more comparable to those imposed on their six co-defendants, who pleaded guilty to lesser charges.
Daud, 24, and Farah, 24, were each sentenced to 30 years in prison, and the 23-year-old Omar — described by prosecutors as an "emir," or leader, of a group that sought to join ISIS — was sentenced to 35 years. Senior U.S. District Judge Michael Davis imposed 10-year sentences on four men who pleaded guilty and much shorter terms, including time served, on two who testified at trial.
Now, a three-judge panel on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to listen to 30 minutes of oral arguments from each attorney on June 14 in St. Paul. Daud, Farah and Omar are being held in separate federal prisons across the country and will not be at the hearing.
Bruce Nestor, an attorney for Daud, said Friday that a key issue in the case stemmed from Davis' jury instructions, which he said cleared a path for his client to be convicted of conspiring to commit murder abroad without prosecutors being required to prove a specific intent to kill anyone. Instead, he said, Daud was convicted based on evidence that he planned to associate with a group "engaged in unlawful fighting."
"If this standard was applied to the U.S. government, which routinely funds and supports groups also engaged in unlawful killing, then many U.S. government officials should be locked up alongside Mr. Daud," Nestor said Friday. "Mr. Daud's conviction was unfair, and his sentence of 30 years was disproportionate compared to his actual conduct."
Nestor also argued that Davis should have instructed jurors on Daud's contention that he had "an unreasonable but genuine belief" that the conspiracy was meant to defend other Muslims in Syria from President Bashar Assad's regime.
'Overwhelming evidence'
Assistant U.S. Attorney Lisa Kirkpatrick wrote in a February brief to the appeals court that none of the men's arguments have merit and that the government presented "overwhelming evidence" of their "specific intent to kill." Kirkpatrick also argued that Davis "thoroughly and thoughtfully" considered the sentencing factors that included a possible life sentence for each defendant.