Case 1:15-cr-00867-RMB Document 367 Filed 11/29/17 Page 1 of 4

Boston Brussels Chicago Dallas Düsseldorf Frankfurt Houston London Los Angeles Miami
Milan Munich New York Orange County Paris Rome Seoul Silicon Valley Washington, D.C.
Strategic alliance with MWE China Law Offices (Shanghai)

November 27, 2017
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St., Courtroom 17B
New York, New York 10007
Re:

United States v. Zarrab, et al., No. S4 13-cr-867 (RMB)

Dear Judge Berman:
We represent the defendant Mehmet Hakan Atilla in the above-referenced matter and we
write to object vigorously to GX 8001 (attached as Exhibit 1), which is an exhibit that the
government’s proposed expert, Mark Dubowitz, apparently intends to display to the jury. As the
Court has recognized, this is not a terrorism case and there are no legal or factual allegations of
terrorism against Mr.Atilla. Accordingly, we write to object to proposed government exhibit
(“GX”) 8001, which is a slide deck that contains repeated references to “terrorism,” “jihad”,
taking “66 U.S. citizens hostage”, emblems of a fist holding an automatic weapon and other
blatant efforts to falsely present to the jury that Mr. Atilla has some connection with terrorism.
GX 8001 is highly prejudicial and should not be allowed to be presented to the jury.
On August 16, 2017, the government provided the defense notice that it would be calling
Mr. Dubowitz as an expert witness and four bullet points outlining his anticipated testimony.
That proposed testimony was the subject of pretrial motion practice, in which the Court ruled as
follows:
Mark Dubowitz and Jonathan Schanzer may testify as to the
general purpose(s) of the sanctions regime, the role of certain
sanctioned entities and individuals in the Iranian government and
economy and, specifically, entities and individuals who will be
discussed by fact witnesses in connection with the offense conduct
in this case. They may also testify as to the orders and regulations
under which those individuals were designated, and the economic

U.S. practice conducted through McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

340 Madison Avenue New York New York 10173-1922 Telephone: +1 212 547 5400 Facsimile: +1 212 547 5444 www.mwe.com

 Case 1:15-cr-00867-RMB Document 367 Filed 11/29/17 Page 2 of 4
Letter to The Honorable Richard M. Berman
November 27, 2017
Page 2
relationship between Iran and Turkey during the time period
charged in the Indictment.
ECF No. 357, at 3-4.
Now that the government has finally produced GX 8001, it is clear that the government
intends to go far beyond the Court’s ruling and present to the jury a summary slide deck that
contains a number of highly prejudicial terrorism-related references and illustrations which have
nothing to do with Mr. Atilla. While we recognize the general nature of Mr. Dubowitz’
testimony has been ruled admissible, given this proposed slide deck, we are compelled to object
to this exhibit and related testimony. Perhaps the most prejudicial aspects of the slide deck is
that it contains (1) eleven references to the words “terror” or “terrorism”; (2) fourteen references
to “nuclear weapons” or “weapons of mass destruction”; (3) three different uses of the word
“jihad”; (4) an emblem with a fist carrying an automatic weapon; (5) pictures and descriptions of
a number of Middle-Eastern sanctioned persons that have absolutely no connection to Mr. Atilla;
and (6) references to several violent acts of terrorism and the taking of 66 American hostages in
the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979. GX 8001. None of this has any connection with Mr. Atilla
whatsoever. Mr. Atilla is a bank employee - not a member of a terrorist organization. Nor is he
charged with any terror-related crime. These repeated references to terrorism and violence serve
only to improperly poison the jury and violate Mr. Atilla’s constitutional right to a fair trial. See
United States v. Elfgheeh, 515 F.3d 100, 127 (2d Cir. 2008)(“There can be little doubt that . . .
evidence linking a defendant to terrorism in a trial in which he is not charged with terrorism is
likely to cause undue prejudice”).
In United States v Al-Moayad, a case in which the defendant was actually charged with
terrorism crimes (conspiracy to provide material support to terrorist organizations), the trial
conviction was reversed because the Court allowed a witness “to testify at length about [a]
suicide bombing” even though “the defendants were not charged with planning or carrying out
the [] bombing.” 545 F.3d 139, 160 (2d Cir. 2008). The defendant argued that the testimony
about the bombing and Al-Qaeda training camps was irrelevant, prejudicial and highly
inflammatory and the Circuit “agree[d] that the district court should have excluded the
challenged testimony under Rule 403, and that its failure to do so deprived the defendants of a
fair trial.” Id. at 159. In this case, the terrorism evidence is even more inappropriate than in AlMoayad, because Mr. Atilla is not charged with any act of terrorism, nor are there even any
factual allegations linking him to terrorism or the support of terrorism in any way.
Perhaps realizing that the actual evidence against Mr. Atilla is not as strong as the
government hoped it would be, it now seeks to invite the jury to convict based upon “fear and
guilt by association” by presenting to the jury repeated references to terrorism and pictures of
Middle Eastern persons who have been sanctioned in an attempt to implicitly tie those unrelated
terrorist acts and those Middle Eastern-looking villains to Mr. Atilla, even though Mr. Atilla has
no connection with them at all. See United States v. Sedaghaty, 728 F.3d 885, 917-918 (9th Cir.
2013)(cautioning against the use of terrorism references in cases where the government “does

2

 Case 1:15-cr-00867-RMB Document 367 Filed 11/29/17 Page 3 of 4
Letter to The Honorable Richard M. Berman
November 27, 2017
Page 3
not allege material support to terrorism” and noting that the Circuit is “confident that the district
court will recognize the fine line separating necessary and probative evidence of willful falsity
from evidence that would cast [defendant] in the role of a terrorist based on appeals to fear and
guilt by association and thereby unduly prejudice the proceedings.”). By way of example, GX
8001 repeatedly refers to evidence about “Iranian extremist storm[ing] [the] U.S. embassy in
Tehran and tak[ing] 66 U.S. citizens hostage” in 1979. GX 8001, at 5. The Tehran embassy
hostage taking has nothing to do with Mr. Atilla or the charges in this case – Mr. Atilla was nine
years old in 1979. Similarly, pictures and references to “terror,” “terrorism,” “jihad,” and
sanctioned and un-sanctioned Middle Eastern people that have nothing to do with Mr. Atilla, or
this case, should be excluded. GX 8001, at 3, 4, 8, 19, 29, 30.
While the Court has ruled that the term “economic jihad” as referenced in one letter by a
co-defendant is admissible (with a corresponding limiting instruction), the government should
not be allowed to repeat it over and over again, particularly not in conjunction with a picture of
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khameni and a speech made on March 21, 2011 which are unrelated
to Mr. Atilla. GX 8001, at 2. The government then repeats the word “jihad” three times in its
not so subtle effort to brand Mr. Atilla as a terrorist. Though we vehemently object to this highly
inflammatory term being used at all in Mr. Atilla’s trial, we respectfully submit that if the Court
does allow the government to reference the term “jihad,” the Court should issue an instruction
that the term “jihad” does not mean violent terroristic acts as the government is trying to suggest
to the jury. Particularly in the context of the referenced speech, in which the references is to
“economic jihad” the reference is much more benign and the jury should be so instructed. The
jury should be instructed as follows:
The literal meaning of Jihad is struggle or effort.” See BBC, Religions, Jihad,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/jihad_1.shtml. The word
refers to “a range of activities all based on the Arabic meaning of the word
‘exerted effort’” including ‘exerting effort to change oneself.’” Brian Handwerk,
What Does “Jihad” Really Mean to Muslims?, National Geographic News (Oct.
24, 2003). Jihad has “often been used to denote nonviolent and purely internal
struggles, such as attempts at personal and spiritual movement, or social
activism.” Darryl Li, Jihad in a World of Sovereigns: Law, Violence, and Islam
in the Bosnia Crisis, 41 LAW & SOC. INQUIRY 371 (Spring 2016).
GX 8001 also contains repeated references to numerous sanctions regimes which are not
at issue in the trial at hand. This will lead to confusion amongst the jury about which sanctions
are relevant, which sanctions are applicable and which sanctions the defendant has been charged
with violating. Faced with an overwhelming and confusing number of references to numerous
irrelevant sanctions, many of which have been repealed, the government simply invites the jury
to throw up their hands and decide without reference to any actual evidence that the defendant
must have violated some of these sanctions. The slide deck also references the United Nation’s
efforts to block Weapon of Mass Destruction proliferators, which has absolutely no applicability
to this case.

3

 Case 1:15-cr-00867-RMB Document 367 Filed 11/29/17 Page 4 of 4
Letter to The Honorable Richard M. Berman
November 27, 2017
Page 4
The presentation also contains numerous subjective descriptions by Mr. Dubowitz that
have nothing to do with his expert opinion and are outside the scope of any expert, including
Iran’s supposed “intransigence” to the international community, his opinion that Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad was a “Hardline Iranian President” that was “re-elected” in a case of “wide-scale
voter fraud” and vague and unsupported conclusory statements such as “[NIOC] was involved in
the Iranian government’s efforts to evade sanctions and engage in deceptive transactions.” GX
8001, at 11, 13. GX 8001 also simply includes numerous conclusions reached by the Treasury
Department, not by Mr. Dubowitz, which Mr. Dubowitz should not be allowed to testify about.
GX 8001, at 9 (“Treasury noted that the IRGC was coordinating efforts to evade crude oil
sanctions (especially EU sanctions) and that the ‘IRGC’s influence has grown within NIOC”), 12
(“Mahan ferries weapons, funds, and personnel to Syria and secretly transports Iranian officers to
Iraq on behalf of the IRGC-QF, according to the U.S. Treasury.”), 15 (Bank Saderat “‘facilitates
Iran’s transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars to . . . terrorist organizations,’ according to the
U.S. Treasury.”), 18 (“Treasury noted that Iranian financial institutions, including the central
bank, engage in deceptive practices to evade sanctions and conduct illicit activities.”).
For the foregoing reasons, proposed GX 8001 should not be allowed to be presented to
the jury.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/

Todd Harrison

Todd Harrison
CC:

All parties

4