I’m not sure how some of these charges will stick:
Enrique Marquez, who bought the assault rifles used in the massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., that left 14 people dead, was arrested and charged Thursday with conspiring to conduct two terrorism attacks in 2011 and 2012.
From Our AdvertisersFederal officials charged Mr. Marquez, 24 of Riverside, Calif., with providing material support — including himself, a firearm and explosives — for crimes of terrorism; making a false statement in connection with acquisition of firearms; and immigration fraud. The federal complaint said that in addition to buying the guns, Mr. Marquez bought some of the explosive material found at the shooting rampage.
Mr. Marquez became the first person charged in connection with the shooting rampage by Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, that also left 22 wounded. A longtime friend and neighbor of Mr. Farook, Mr. Marquez had been cooperating with investigators, supplying much of what the federal authorities know about the couple, who died in a shootout with the police.
“While there currently is no evidence that Mr. Marquez participated in the Dec. 2 attack or had advance knowledge of it,” a United States attorney, Eileen M. Decker, said in a statement, “his prior purchase of the firearms and ongoing failure to warn authorities about Farook’s intent to commit mass murder had fatal consequences.”
Again, IANAL, so I don’t understand how he could be charged with terrorism if he didn’t know of or plan or participate in the actual attacks. The other charges make sense, but that one does not. Maybe as more information trickles in or maybe one of you legal types can explain the statute he is supposed to have violated.
Baud
Here is the charging document. The “terrorism” charge is conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.
raven
Wasn’t their evidence of him trying to convert them to full-auto?
raven
@Baud: Seems like he’s another dumb fuck who is going up the lazy river for a loooong time.
? Martin
AR-15 is illegal in California and he was a straw buyer. Knowing that he was selling guns illegally, what’s his defense?
Mike J
Marquez admitted planning attacks with Farook. The testimony of a co-conspirator is a pretty good basis for bringing charges.
John Cole
@Mike J: Attacks that were not committed, though, I thought.
eemom
IIRC, when you are charged with conspiracy it can encompass whatever crimes your co-conspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. But I’ve never practiced in that area.
ETA: I remember my Criminal Law professor giving an example of one co-conspirator being caught and still being on the hook for the crimes the others commit while he’s in jail….sort of like being “underwater” in serving time.
? Martin
@John Cole: Doesn’t matter – he still conspired to commit them.
Baud
@raven:
I think that was a quote from DOJ’s press release.
M. Bouffant
How will they stick? They won’t be able to find a jury that isn’t salivating to convict him on every charge.
Gimlet
Even more from those always grinding wheels of justice
The Mirror reports that Abdulaziz had already had sex with the 18-year-old’s friend and he said his penis might have been poking out of his underwear when he happened upon the young woman sleeping off a night of drinking.
The millionaire accounted for his DNA being found in the woman’s vagina because she had allegedly seduced him when he was offering her a T-shirt or a taxi ride home. He also said that he had semen on his hands from having sex with the woman’s friend earlier. In court, Abdulaziz maintained his innocence, saying, “I’m fragile, I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened.”
A jury reportedly deliberated for only 30 minutes before acquitting Abdulaziz of one count of rape.
Mike J
@John Cole:
So?
Adam L Silverman
@? Martin: AR 15s are legal in California provided they have a bullet button to disconnect the magazine and the magazines themselves only have a ten round capacity. There may be one or two other cosmetic requirements, as I don’t live in CA I can’t recall, but I seem to have read something that indicates they can only have one or the other of either a) a telescoping stock or b) a flash suppressor. Don’t quote me on this part though.
raven
@? Martin: The weapons were legal.
“The suspects in the San Bernardino shootings used semiautomatic rifles that were legally obtained despite gun laws in California that were intended to ban assault weapons and are widely regarded as among the strictest in the country.
The rifles were variants of the popular AR-15, the semiautomatic civilian version of a military M-16. They are surprisingly easy to acquire in California, though they come with limitations aimed at curbing their ability to inflict mass damage. Semiautomatic rifles, for instance, cannot have magazines that hold more than 10 bullets or can be quickly removed.
However, such limitations can be easily, if illegally, bypassed. For instance, a 10-bullet magazine can be quickly removed by pressing the tip of a loose bullet into a recessed button, allowing for a high-capacity magazine to be inserted in its place.
San Bernardino Suspects Left Trail of Clues, but No Clear MotiveDEC. 3, 2015
Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the suspects in the San Bernardino, Calif., shooting.Couple Kept Tight Lid on Plans for San Bernardino ShootingDEC. 3, 2015
A woman who survived the shooting rampage in San Bernardino, Calif., was comforted by her parents on Wednesday night while she spoke to reporters.Fear in the Air, Americans Look Over Their ShouldersDEC. 3, 2015
An officer with weaponry that was found in the S.U.V. used by two assailants on Wednesday in San Bernardino, Calif. One is under scrutiny for possible radical Islam ties.Essay: A Nation Wonders When Bloodshed Becomes TerrorismDEC. 3, 2015
An FBI investigator in Redlands, Calif. Authorities raided a townhouse where one of the suspects in the shootings apparently lived.Police Raid Townhouse of Suspect in San Bernardino ShootingDEC. 3, 2015
The aftermath of a mass shooting at a social services facility in San Bernardino, Calif., on Wednesday. Entire neighborhoods were on lockdown afterward.Struggling City Is Traumatized by a Siege and a Loud and Bloody ShootoutDEC. 3, 2015
Emergency crews helped the injured outside the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino on Wednesday.San Bernardino Shooting Kills at Least 14; Two Suspects Are DeadDEC. 2, 2015
This release feature — called a “bullet button” — is installed, legally, by gun manufacturers on rifles sold in California; the high-capacity magazine is illegal in the state.”
oz29
“Material support” includes practically anything: “property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” The statute does not require the specific intent to commit a particular act of terrorism; the scienter element requires only the knowledge or intent that the materiel or assistance will be used for the preparation or conduct of some terroristic activity. “Knowledge” is generally presumed to mean that the defendant knew or should have known whatever he is charged with knowing.
raven
@Baud: Yea, I wrote it!
Baud
@oz29:
Is that something unique to the terrorism statute? That’s not usually true.
Davebo
@M. Bouffant:
He should definitely go for a bench trial.
raven
oz29
@Baud: Nope. That is almost always true in criminal law, unless the crime requires, as a statutory element, specific intent. Those four words “or should have known” put a lot of people in prison.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Adam L Silverman: I will quote you if I want to. But only because I’m too lazy to look at CA weapons statutes.
@raven – thanks for the cool world surf league link last night. I’d have answered then but an update wiped out all my stored info on the tablet. And here, but it’s easier to restore on a desktop.
Gimlet
@oz29:
The statute does not require the specific intent to commit a particular act of terrorism; the scienter element requires only the knowledge or intent that the materiel or assistance will be used for the preparation or conduct of some terroristic activity. “Knowledge” is generally presumed to mean that the defendant knew or should have known whatever he is charged with knowing.
Seems like you could make a case for right-wing radio and Planned Parenthood or Abortion clinic attacks with this wording – thinking.
Baud
Here is the material support statute. It’s illegal to
Baud
@oz29: Interesting. I’ve never heard of knowledge being interpreted as including a negligence standard.
Betty Cracker
Just heard a report that said Marquez hadn’t had any terrorism-related conversations with Farook for a couple of years. Sounds like one of those pathetic losers who talks big and never actually does anything. He apparently called 911 after the SB attack and told them he knew the shooter and fessed up to providing the guns. He’s cooperating, which may save his ass from the maximum sentence if convicted.
Betty Cracker
PS: The mobile version of the site is working spectacularly on my iPhone for the first time ever. I don’t just mean since the redesign — I mean ever. Merci, Alain!
JPL
@Betty Cracker: It didn’t help with the American that they caught during the early days in Afghanistan.
John Walker Lindh
Baud
@Betty Cracker: Well, providing guns is more than just talk. Agree with everything else.
Baud
@Betty Cracker: On Android, I’m still having to refresh the screen manually sometimes.
oz29
@Baud: That language is the default. Take something as simple as speeding. Almost every state has a statute that requires that in every public offense there must be a union of act and intent. Thus, you must intend to violate the speed limit. It follows, then, that every defendant can simply go before the jury and say “I didn’t mean to speed. I didn’t know what the speed limit was.” Nope. They knew, or should have known, because all defendants are charged with an encyclopedic knowledge of the law (ignorance is no defense.)
See, for example your jurisdiction’s statute regarding (Theft by) Possession of Stolen Property, where it likely appears explicitly. Or, a Felony-Murder statute. Criminal prosecutions depend on implied knowledge.
Betty Cracker
@Baud: True, but Farook could have bought those guns himself; he was an American citizen with no criminal record. He was just paranoid about being profiled. And going to a store and buying something doesn’t take a lot of nerve.
Gvg
People get charged with intent to commit crimes and conspiricy all the time. Think police informants who posed as criminals with arrests before the crime. They have to act before a murder is carried out for instance. Sometimes they go too far with intrapment, but this time I don’t think it’s unbelievable. Buying guns for someone is pretty definite.
Adam L Silverman
@Betty Cracker: They straw purchases of the guns will be enough to put him away for a while if they actual file those charges.
scav
It’ll be interesting to see if they come down any harder on other straw purchasers of guns based on downstream activities, because there are a fair number of those. (Or, is, “hey bro, could you pick up a six-pack, a dozen eggs and a semi-automatic on your way over” just part of homespun red-blooded ‘Mercan culture?) Or will only scary, terroristic (thus necessarily brown) people somehow end up in these nets?
Baud
@oz29:
Knowledge of the law is typically presumed. In the civil context, Knowledge of relevant facts usually must be proven if the statute requires knowledge.
I assumed speeding was a strict liability statute.
Baud
@Betty Cracker:
That’s the point. Marquez helped with concealment.
oz29
@Baud: The Model Penal Code would tell you that speeding is a strict liability offense. The law in the various states would tell you that every public offense requires a union of act and intent.
I have had many clients who look at the statute and say, “they can’t convict me.” I hand them a copy of the pattern jury instructions and say, “wanna bet?”
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Baud: Indeed in a good (not all) of criminal law, what is negligent civilly can get you on the hook criminally. E.g., receiving stolen property – “knew or should have known was likely to have been obtained through the commission of a theft offense.” It’s pretty state specific. And a statute like material support is one where the prosecution will argue knowing + should have known, though I suspect there are facts that would support actual knowledge. Traffic laws tend to be strict liability laws in many, if not most or all, states.
raven
Enrique Marquez, 24, a friend of Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, who launched the Islamic State-inspired attack on Dec. 2 with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, 29, also told investigators he and Farook plotted earlier mass casualty attacks, prosecutors said.
U.S. Attorney Eileen Decker said the two men conspired to commit “vicious” assaults on targets including a California community college and a state highway during rush hour.
“Even though these plans were not carried out, Mr. Marquez’s criminal conduct deeply affected San Bernardino … and the entire United States when the guns purchased by Marquez were used to kill 14 innocent people and wound many others,” Decker said in a written statement.
Davebo
@Betty Cracker:
The article states that ” Marquez waived his right to remain silent, and admitted that he bought the guns for Mr. Farook, who believed he could not pass the required background check.”
Elizabelle
Hope they have Marquez on suicide watch.
Amazing to me he was telling coworkers and his FB page about some of this stuff, prior to the December 2nd attack, and no one took him seriously.
First NYT (?) story I saw described Marquez as “impressionable” (aka gullible). Wonder how many more Enriques there are out there.
reality-based (the original, not the troll)
@? Martin:
completely off topic – when Federal Prisons went smoke – free, I (briefly) considered getting myself sent up for some innocuous crime – say, a year – so i could catch up on my reading and quit smoking. The crime I was thinking of committing was “Conspiring to kill a bald eagle.” 3 things stopped me:
1. Couldn’t find a co-conspirator who also wanted to quit smoking.
2. My lawyer friends pointed out that the really NICE country-club Federal Prisons, with the good libraries, were mostly reserved for Wall Street types and U.S. congressmen. – Absent high-powered representation, I would likely find myself in Recidivist Drug Hellhole. Didn’t sound enjoyable.
3.I realized I didn’t know how to conspire, exactly. Do you have to pick out a specific eagle to murder? Do you have to actually buy a gun? Do you have to SHOOT it? I didn’t want to actually hurt any eagles by mistake –
I still smoke, by the way
Burnspbesq
The Eastern Division of the Central District sits in Riverside, which is the closest thing we have to Cracker Country in SoCal. I agree with whoever said that a bench trial sounds like something the defense should seriously consider.
catclub
@John Cole:
This guy clearly did not have a lawyer with him. he is likely toast.
Adam L Silverman
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): I will deny all responsibility…
Omnes Omnibus
@John Cole: Under federal criminal statutes, conspiracy requires only an agreement between two or more individuals to commit an illegal act. It used to require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy but that has been eliminated.
oz29
@catclub: No lawyer, and the Feebs typically don’t record any conversations or take any notes (or so they claim.) They only testify to their recollection.
Elizabelle
@catclub: Yeah, I was amazed throughout that he never lawyered up. I read the court filing; agent says they had Marquez sign a document (every single day) that he was aware he did not have to talk to agents, and could request a lawyer. Said Marquez had expressed interest in obtaining a lawyer at one point, but “ultimately decided he wanted to keep talking to the agents.” Pages 5-6 of criminal complaint; footnote at bottom.
Elizabelle
@oz29: No taping of the interview?
Did not know. Have been watching too much Law & Order, and Prime Suspect.
RSA
@reality-based (the original, not the troll):
When I was a teenager, I worked scrubbing pots at an upscale restaurant. I stayed at the job for a few years, watching co-workers come and go. I remember John, a little older than me, who was still finding his place in the world. He liked the job we had but wasn’t entirely satisfied; his ambition was to go to jail for a few years and bulk up, lifting weights all day. Everyone else in the kitchen thought this was an achievable goal for John, but I don’t know if it ever happened. I wonder sometimes.
Roger Moore
An interesting point here is that California law requires that all gun transfers, including private transfers, have to take place through a registered gun dealer; there’s no gun show loophole here. So it’s illegal to sell, or even give, a gun to your buddy without going to a dealer, filling out the paperwork, getting a background check, and waiting for 10 days. Even the limited categories that don’t have to go through a dealer (between spouses, parent and child, or grandparent and grandchild) still require the parties to the transfer to fill out a form. So just giving the guy the gun is illegal even without any kind of knowledge of what he intended to use it for.
Omnes Omnibus
@oz29: The charging document indicates that recordings were made (see, pg 6).
Elizabelle
@Omnes Omnibus: Good eye (re recordings), counselor.
From LATimes:
I haven’t seen anything yet about “drugs”; rest is in the court filing and newspaper reports. Filing says Enrique’s family did not know he was married.
Betty Cracker
@Baud: Right — I’m not disputing the justice of the charges, just speculating that Marquez was/is probably a big talker without a lot of nerve. It doesn’t sound like anyone took him seriously. Well, now the feds do.
JDM
He got guns for brown people; how is that not terrorism?
Omnes Omnibus
@JDM: He’s not being charged with terrorism.
Mnemosyne
@oz29:
The last jury I was on was because a law student tried to go into a courthouse but forgot she had a big nasty knife in her bag. When they saw it on the x-ray, they called the cops and had her arrested.
It turned out that the statute for that specifically says that you have to have a motive for trying to bring the weapon in — the mere presence of a legal weapon in your bag is not illegal. I think it took longer to fill out the paperwork to acquit her than it did to vote on it.
(The prosecutor’s stated theory to us was that women always know exactly what they have in their purses, so she must have been trying to bring it in on purpose. That’s where he lost the case, at least with us. Was he raised in a monastery with no contact with women?)
oz29
@Mnemosyne: Sounds like a prosecutor who had too much time on his hands. In my particular jurisdiction, no motive is necessary to convict someone of a concealed weapon offense in a courthouse.
oz29
@Omnes Omnibus: You’re right. In my experience, it is very unusual for the feds to admit they have audio recordings.
Betty Cracker
@Mnemosyne: LOL, whatta maroon! He must have no female colleagues either; they could have set him straight!
SWMBO
@Mnemosyne: I was going into the courthouse to file a paper for the court. I saw the signs about leave your cell phone in your car and did so. Completely forgot about the small flashlight in the bottom of my purse. The guy that scanned my purse raised his eyebrows and asked if there was anything metal in my purse. Nothing that I recall. The woman walked over, looked at the screen and asked if I carried a flashlight. Oh, yeah, I remember now. Opened the purse, showed it to them and went on my merry way. The woman was amused.
Ecks
@? Martin: It’s like an old debate case I saw once in undergrad. One team argued that we should have an eye-for-an-eye punishment system. You steal, you get stolen from, etc. The opposition player stood up and said “what do you do in cases of attempted murder?” Case over, right there :)
J R in WV
I saw a lecture by two guys, a defense attorney and an ex-cop, to the effect that no one should ever discuss any potential crime with any police officer without a criminal defense attorney present. They both gave examples of seemingly innocent conversation that could lead to serious criminal charges, even if one was completely innocent.
Talking about one’s travel on a day when something criminal may have happened, even though not known to you, for example. If the police found someone willing to testify they saw you somewhere after you had said that you were elsewhere, on a day a crime may have been committed. Or a receipt or electronic transaction that showed you were in city A when you had told them you were in city Z. They had many real-world examples, and were not fooling around with their advice.
Who knows who or what the police might be looking for on any given day? Crimes you haven’t even heard of may have been committed. “Where you coming from?” or “Where you headed?” could be far more than passing the time of day in a friendly manner.