United States v. Mohamed, No. 12-2835 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for food-stamp fraud by giving cash back on a purchase with a USDA Electronics Benefit Transfer (EBT) food-stamp card. The court concluded that it was unnecessary to decide whether admitting Exhibit 7, a translated transcript of selected portions of a recording from the device the confidential informant wore during the sting operation, into evidence without having the original translator testify regarding its content violated the Confrontation Clause because any alleged error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; the district court did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 106 in excluding Exhibit 7; the linguist's use of a pseudonym did not deny defendant the opportunity to effectively conduct cross-examination and no Confrontation Clause violation occurred; and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict as to Count II. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Any Confrontation Clause violation in admitting an exhibit containing a translation of recorded calls in the absence of testimony from the actual translator was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the other evidence in the case; admission of the exhibit, which contained translations of parts of the conversations, did not violate Rule 106 as defendant failed to identify any other portions of the conversations which should have been translated even though he had the entire recording and time to obtain his own translation; permitting an FBI linguist to testify under a pseudonym did not violate defendant's Confrontation Clause rights as his attorney was given the linguist's real name and defendant had the information needed to cross-examine the witness regarding his qualifications and experience; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for food stamp fraud.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.