Inside the Al Sheikh Trial #7: Week 2 – The Defense Presents its Case

TRIAL OF UNITED STATES V. ALSHEIKH

United States District Court for the Central District of California – Los Angeles, USA

Trial Monitoring Summary #7

Trial Dates: March 9, 12 & 13, 2026

CAUTION: Some testimony may include graphic descriptions of torture, rape or other violent acts.  

Note that this summary is not a verbatim transcript of the trial; it is merely an unofficial summary of the proceedings.  

Throughout this summary, [information located in brackets are notes from our trial monitor] and “information placed in quotes are statements made by the witness, judges or counsel.” The names and identifying information of witnesses have been redacted. 

[Note: SJAC provides a summary of the proceedings while redacting certain details to protect witness privacy and to preserve the integrity of the trial.]

Trial Monitoring reports of the Samir Al Sheikh trial are a result of a partnership between the Syria Justice and Accountability Centre (SJAC) and the Loyola Justice for Atrocities Clinic (LJAC) at LMU Loyola Law School (Los Angeles). Apart from trial monitoring, SJAC also supports authorities seeking to prosecute atrocity crimes committed in Syria by conducting investigative work and connecting witnesses with prosecutors (“case building”). SJAC's trial monitoring team does not share information with SJAC's case building team. Therefore, the latter only has access to the published reports available to the general public.

SJAC’s 7th trial monitoring report details the second week of the trial of Samir Al Sheikh in Los Angeles, USA. On the sixth trial day, the Prosecution concluded questioning of its last witness and rested its case. The Defense then began its case with testimony from three different witnesses. The first, a former political prisoner in Syria, testified about the Syrian political landscape and his time at Adra Prison. The second, a vendor and prisoner care associate at Adra, testified about conditions and improvements at the prison under the Defendant's leadership. The third, who worked in the Syrian criminal justice system, began his testimony about his roles at the Ministry of Justice and his father's law firm.

On the seventh trial day, the Defense completed testimony from its third witness, whose credibility was challenged on cross-examination regarding his relationship with the Defendant and his U.S. immigration history. The Defense called an FBI agent and a private investigator as witnesses regarding prior interviews and U.S. immigration records. The Defense then called two additional witnesses, a former Syrian political prisoner and signatory of the Damascus Declaration, and a man who had been detained at both Adra and Syrian security branch facilities—both of whom testified they had never heard reports of torture occurring at Adra.

On the eighth trial day, the Defense completed testimony from the previous day’s witness, who contrasted his generally acceptable experiences at Adra with the severe torture he endured at Syrian security branch facilities. The Defense then called its final witness, an expert in Syrian human rights documentation, who testified she received no reports of mistreatment at Adra during the Defendant's tenure. The Defense rested its case and counsel for the parties debated appropriate jury instructions outside the presence of the jury.

Day 6 – March 9, 2026

The trial day began with the Court handling several matters outside the presence of the jury. First, the parties were directed to meet and confer regarding trial exhibits.

Second, the Prosecution made an oral motion to exclude the testimony of the Defense expert on the basis of hearsay, arguing that the expert’s testimony appeared likely to consist purely of statements she heard others say. The Court stated it was inclined to deny the motion because, although the expert had not submitted an expert report, she “has a basis—she lived it.” The Court stated the testimony was likely to be from the expert’s first-hand knowledge, “not three-four levels out,” and stated it did not see the witness as “just a mouthpiece.” The Prosecution argued the expert was imprisoned at Adra after the Defendant left the prison, and in the women’s unit, making her testimony entirely separate and irrelevant. The Court denied the motion without prejudice but stated the Prosecution could raise objections to the Defense expert testimony in real time.

Third, Defense Counsel informed the Court that it had two witnesses—B. and F.—who were unable to travel from the Middle East due to the war that had just begun in Iran, and who may need to testify via video.

Fourth, a Defense witness identified as Mr. Imad requested to testify using only his first name, as he lived in the United States but had extensive family in Syria and was concerned for their safety. The Prosecution stated it was not prejudiced. The Court granted the request, and the public was ordered not to release the witness’s last name.

The jury was brought in. Cross-examination of Prosecution witness M.S. resumed. [M.S. had begun his testimony on Day 5 of the trial.] Defense Counsel asked M.S. about his subjection to the doulab (tire) and shabeh (crucifixion), noting he had testified to losing feeling in his wrists. M.S. responded he did not need to tell anyone what happened; the people who saw him in his room knew because his wounds were visible. He stated he was in custody for approximately one and a half years for fighting and “saying something bad” about al-Assad.

Defense Counsel asked if M.S. had been in custody for the murder of Mazhar Burghal. The witness confirmed that the name listed on its Exhibit 62, consisting of verified Syrian criminal records— [redacted information] —was his. Defense Counsel asked if, as stated in the records, M.S. was convicted of felony murder and sentenced to 15 years. M.S. responded, “If accused of murder, I wouldn’t have been here.” M.S. denied the sentence had been reduced as stated in the document. Defense Counsel asked if, when arrested, he was taken to the criminal security branch. M.S. stated, “I didn’t kill.” Defense Counsel noted M.S. had testified on direct examination that he had a fight with someone, which M.S. confirmed. Defense Counsel stated the document indicated M.S. told the investigating judge he did not mean to kill but only to injure. M.S. responded emphatically, “No, no!”

Defense Counsel directed M.S.’s attention to additional entries in the criminal records relating to drug charges, which M.S. denied. Defense Counsel pointed to multiple entries for drug-related charges across different years, to which M.S. replied, “I’m not perfect, but I’m not that bad either.” Defense Counsel also referenced military offenses in Latakia, including fleeing military service and violent robbery. M.S. responded that if convicted of all the things described, he would still be in prison and would never have left Syria. M.S. also stated that it was possible to buy such records for $1, that nowhere did they say he was convicted, and that they were “just talk.”

When Defense Counsel stated she was just trying to get at the truth that M.S. was never tortured at Adra, M.S. stated he was not a rich person and that if she took him to a doctor they would not doubt his injuries. Defense Counsel pressed M.S. on whether his testimony was that the Assad regime treated him badly. M.S. responded, “No, I never said that the whole regime was bad. And some people tell the truth and some people don’t.” Defense Counsel ended her cross-examination.

On re-direct, the Prosecution asked if there was any indication on the exhibit that M.S. was actually convicted of murder. M.S. replied, “I’m not a criminal.” The Prosecution noted many of the dates on the criminal records were after M.S. had left Syria in 2011. The Prosecution confirmed M.S. spent a little over one year in prison, that he was held in Adra Wing 13, and that the blasphemy charge was not connected to any of the other prisons or charges.

The Prosecution rested its case.

The Defense called its first witness, [redacted name] (“T.A.”), who testified through an Arabic translator. T.A. testified that he was born in Syria and had resided in Sweden since 2013. He was an artist with a well-known atelier in Syria.

T.A. stated he belonged to the Syrian Communist Party, which opposed the Hafez Assad regime. He stated that in 1975, after the “noose got tight,” the party members moved much less than before. T.A. stated that after 1979 when the Muslim Brotherhood was committing terrorist activity in Syria, the regime waged a strong campaign of revenge against any political party that refused to support the regime. T.A. testified he was arrested in 1982 and was imprisoned under martial law without court procedures at both Tadmor and Sednaya prisons before being released in 1991.

T.A. described being held in the military security branch at Damascus, where he was interrogated and tortured because the Syrian government wanted to extract information from him concerning the names of other Communist Party members and primary meeting places of the Party. T.A. stated that he was subjected to methods of torture including the doulab, magic carpet, ghosting, electricity, the German chair, and the shabeh [note: “ghosting” is a common translation for shabeh.] During the period of his interrogation, T.A. testified he was held in solitary confinement in a 160cm x 70cm cell. He stated he was also sleep-deprived by bright lights, insults, and beatings.

T.A. testified that after six months at the military security branch, he was transferred to Tadmor prison. Upon arrival at Tadmor, he was given a “reception party,” where prisoners were stripped naked, beaten with rubber devices, and then sent to their prison rooms. T.A. stated that after 6.5 years at Tadmor, he was transferred to Sednaya prison from 1986 to December 1991. According to T.A., the difference between the security branch and Tadmor was that the security branch functioned to extract information, while the prisons were a place to put prisoners. Tadmor and Sednaya were military prisons which were tightly controlled, while Adra was a civil prison which reported to the Ministry of the Interior, was subject to judicial control, and had a prisoner’s care association. T.A. stated that his treatment at Sednaya was “acceptable” because the head of the prison at the time, Barakat Alosh, played a positive role in reducing violence in prisons.

Following his release from Sednaya, T.A. stated he continued his political activities. T.A. described the hope for a “new time” after Hafez Assad’s death and the Damascus Declaration in 2005, which he connected to Riad Seif. T.A. characterized this as an “invitation” for the whole community to set up a democratic system. T.A. signed the Beirut-Damascus Declaration. He testified the regime instantly monitored these activities.

T.A. testified he had been imprisoned at Adra for 2.5 years. T.A. stated that the window in Kamal al-Labwani’s wing looked onto the room where T.A. was held, and that they talked. T.A. stated he never learned any of the political prisoners at Adra, including al-Labwani, were in fear of being hurt in Adra. He never observed any prisoners with visible signs of being mistreated and no one ever said they had been mistreated. According to T.A., it was a very normal environment at Adra where people could cook, eat, and drink with no problem and that it never came close to an environment of fear. He had never heard of a punishment wing at Adra or prisoners mistreated there, even after he became an advisor to the prisoners and spoke with many of them. When asked if he ever discussed his imprisonment with the Defendant, T.A. said no.

T.A. stated that just because he was a political opponent of the Assad regime didn’t mean he couldn’t distinguish between employees of the regime and that “we have to tell the truth.” T.A. testified that he decided to participate in the trial because “he who was wronged shall never accept to wrong others.”

***

[1-hour-6-minute-break]

11:54 a.m. – 1 p.m.

***

The Prosecution began its cross-examination of T.A.

On questioning, T.A. confirmed he was interviewed by Swedish police in 2022 at a U.S. request. T.A. stated he did not tell the Swedish police that police officers at Adra hit people with batons or that prisoners who misbehaved were placed in solitary confinement, but that he had said the prison was very crowded. T.A. confirmed he had complained to Swedish police about being placed in a wing with sex offenders and people with “family problems” such as divorce, and that he thought political prisoners should be treated better. T.A. stated he had formed friendships with the other prisoners and lived the same as them, but that the political prisoners had requested special status.

T.A. added that he had only a general idea how many prisoners were at Adra while he was there, but not specific numbers. He stated he could not speak for other prisoners and did not know what conditions existed in other wings. T.A. confirmed he never went to solitary cells at Adra but said, “We learned a few things from others.” T.A. confirmed he never saw the magic carpet, tires, or shabeh at Adra, and that he had never met K.A.M., N.S., or M.S.

On re-direct, T.A. testified he never saw anyone with batons at Adra. He stated that in the mid-2000s the Assad regime was genuinely trying to project an image of favorable treatment of political prisoners—not merely creating an impression, but adopting a strategy born from the political factors and repression of the era. T.A. testified that the normal operation of Adra allowed prisoners to speak with and receive visitors, and that the conditions were not the same as those at security branch facilities. T.A. confirmed he had never experienced torture at Adra.

On re-cross examination, the Prosecution asked T.A. about his impression that mistreatment at Adra ended in the mid-2000s. T.A. clarified that conditions were “reduced, not ended.” He noted conditions at Adra worsened around 2005 after the Damascus Declaration. The Prosecution referenced multiple documents and articles from Human Rights Watch documenting T.A.’s arrest. T.A. confirmed their existence. T.A. was dismissed.

The Defense then called its second witness, O.A., who testified through an Arabic translator. O.A. testified he was born in Syria, was married, left Syria in 2019, and currently lived in Virginia. He stated he worked as a prisoners’ care associate for the Ministry of Social Affairs at Adra Prison, delivering food, supplies, clothes, underclothes, coffee, canned food, and other items to prisoners as a business. O.A. stated he began working at Adra around 2002 and that the Defendant became director after approximately two years.

O.A. testified the prison food was free of charge but prisoners could purchase additional items through vendors. O.A. stated he went to Adra three to five days per week, around mid-morning to mid-afternoon, and that what was known about Adra is that it was the “five-star” prison.

O.A. testified he knew the Defendant. He said he had met him many times and described visiting his office, which was on the same floor and corridor as other administrative offices. O.A. stated the Defendant granted him access to visit prisoners. He visited approximately twice under those permissions. O.A. stated he was not allowed access to suspicious wards. O.A. was shown a drawing of the first-floor plan of Adra. He stated he could generally move freely but could not go inside the hospital wing, which was “very far,” a “very long way” from the Defendant’s office and that it would be impossible to hear noises from the hospital from the office. He described going to the Defendant’s office and the care association office regularly. O.A. testified that there was a higher-ranking officer—the Ameed (brigadier general) of all prisons—whose office was right next to Defendant’s but with an entrance from outside. This officer was above the Defendant and served as head of all civil prisons. O.A. said all officers wore the same beige uniform with insignia on the shoulder: three stars and an eagle.

O.A. testified he was unaware of anyone being mistreated at Adra, stating, “Never heard anyone.” However, he added he did know that prisoners could be taken downstairs to solitary confinement or have visitation privileges revoked. O.A. confirmed guards inside Adra were not armed—only those at the doors and outside perimeter—and that guards would mingle with prisoners. O.A. testified the Defendant implemented improvements, including introducing English language instruction and proposing that married inmates be allowed to meet with their spouses. Once a month, inmates could meet with their wife and children in a separate room. O.A. said the prison tried to obtain cables for television but it was too expensive; however, Defendant immediately approved the request. O.A. testified that a library, chess, and exercise were also available. He stated he had a friend in solitary who did not appear injured in any way and had a good experience at Adra. O.A. testified he most recently spoke to Defendant one to two days before Defendant was arrested. He stated the Defendant was friends with O.A.’s father and had come to visit the family in Virginia. O.A. recounted the last time he saw Defendant, Defendant told him, “I was pampering the prisoners!”

The Prosecution began its cross-examination of O.A. The Prosecution established O.A. first met Defendant as a teenager through a friend. O.A. confirmed his family had known Defendant’s family before his time at Adra, but they only became close family friends after coming to the United States in 2020. O.A. confirmed he was not allowed access to suspicious wards at Adra and had visited prisoners only twice under Defendant’s permission. He confirmed he was aware of Wing 13 as the wing that housed drug-related prisoners but never went there and was never inside solitary confinement. He stated his primary interaction at Adra was in the prisoner care association offices, where he mostly sat, talked, and drank coffee with two to four people daily.

O.A. stated he was in Defendant’s office at Adra when he heard about the sit-in that had occurred at Adra, but was not there during the sit-in. O.A. did not know if the Defendant finished his term as head of Adra after the sit-in or if he was laid off, and that it was “not my business to find out” if any changes occurred at Adra after the sit-in.

O.A. testified that although he had lived in Virginia since 1996, he frequently traveled to Syria and stayed a long time between 2001-2010, and that between 2005-2008 he was in Syria most of the time, more than half the time. O.A. confirmed that he became a legal permanent resident of the United States [i.e., had a green card] since 1988. The Prosecution asked O.A. if he was aware of the requirement that the United States must be the primary residence of legal permanent residents and that they were not permitted to spend more than half their time outside the United States or could lose the green card. O.A. confirmed that he became a U.S. citizen in 2020. The Prosecution asked if O.A. was aware that one of the requirements of becoming a citizen was that you had to spend the prior five years in the United States. O.A. said yes.

The Prosecution showed O.A. his application for U.S. citizenship, which was admitted into evidence over Defense Counsel’s objections. Defense Counsel stated they had never seen the document. O.A. confirmed that it was his name and signature on the document. The Prosecution asked O.A. to confirm the section of the application detailing time outside the United States in the five years prior to 2020, showing that in 2004 O.A. spent 25 days outside the United States, in 2005 36 days, in 2006 0 days, in 2007 63 days, in 2008 35 days, and in 2009 87 days. O.A. stated that at the time he could check the dates against his passport, but did not know today if it was correct. The Prosecution asked O.A. to confirm that the entry for 2006 showing 0 days outside the United States was correct. O.A. responded that “it must be a mistake in typing” because he “had work there” in Syria.

On questioning from the Prosecution, O.A. stated he remembered being interviewed by the FBI in January 2025 and told them Defendant was famous for catching and arresting criminals. The Prosecution asked if O.A. was aware Defendant was a police officer and familiar with his various roles within the Assad government. O.A. stated he did not have direct experience with Defendant in those roles but had heard he was an officer on the Lebanese border. Defense Counsel objected, and the Court sustained the objection.

On re-direct, Defense Counsel directed O.A.’s attention to Exhibit 42, which calculated the total days O.A. spent outside the United States. The totals for 2004, 2005, and 2007 showed approximately 124 days in Syria, which O.A. stated were spent at Adra as a vendor.

On re-cross examination, the Prosecution asked if during those 124 days O.A. was at Adra every single day. O.A. replied three to five times per week, though never Fridays, but could not remember exact dates. O.A. was dismissed.

The Defense called its third witness, Mr. Imad, who testified through an Arabic translator. The Court ordered Mr. Imad’s last name not be disclosed publicly to protect his identity. Mr. Imad testified he was born in Damascus and graduated from law university in Damascus in 2004. He had never been a licensed attorney. He worked at the Syrian Ministry of Justice while studying, then at his father’s law office as a consultant. He left Syria at the end of 2011 and has lived in Chicago since 2013. He is currently a partner in a legal immigration company. He also works as a medical assistant and is a notary public. He stated he could work as a legal consultant in Syria without a license.

Mr. Imad described his work at the Ministry of Justice from 2000 to 2011, describing multiple roles. He started as a second-level employee before graduating from university, then was promoted to a first-level employee. Mr. Imad testified that at the Ministry of Justice he held roles including in the state cases administration, where he organized and presented criminal cases to the court; in the misdemeanor appeals court, where he was a judges’ reporter and carried out judgments; as a reporter, where he identified parties, took statements in the presence of a judge to execute sentences, and handled processes from start to finish, including sending documents to the Department of Sentence Execution and copies to police for summons. He described working in the Sharia courts, which handled marriages, kinship proof, inheritance, and divorce. He was a Ma’zun or Islamic marriage official. He also described working at a general prosecutor’s office for three years, handling detainee cases with reports from the security branch.

Mr. Imad described the criminal report process: when a person was accused and arrested, they were sent to the criminal security branches or police, who worked on a report regarding the alleged criminal activity. He testified that reports had two types—one secret report that nobody saw, and one that the security branch head or director reviews. If the head agreed, a clean final draft was created, which then was transmitted to the court. He described being assigned to a prosecutor’s office in Ruhenat al-Deen [note: probably, Rukneddein], a Damascus suburb, where he received reports and detainees were processed through temporary detention before being submitted to judges at the first instance court.

Mr. Imad also described his work at his father’s law office, where his father was president of the attorney association with ten to twelve trainees. The firm handled Sharia, civil, criminal, and economic cases. Mr. Imad confirmed he had multiple clients at Adra and stated none of his clients reported mistreatment after release. He testified he personally spoke to approximately 200–250 people through the firm who had been at Adra, and that at the Ministry of Justice approximately 400 detainees came through every day.

Before adjourning for the day, Defense Counsel noted outside the presence of the jury that at least one of its witnesses was still unable to travel from the Middle East and would need to testify remotely, and was awaiting official confirmation of ability to travel from another witness.

Day 7 – March 12, 2026

Court proceedings began at 8:47 a.m. Outside the presence of the jury, one of the jurors informed the Court of a personal issue that would prevent him from being able to attend the remainder of the trial. The Court released that juror from service and substituted an alternate as a replacement.

The Defense noted its updated witness list, which added two FBI agents for impeachment purposes. The Prosecution argued there was no need for a person to read the Defendant’s immigration documents, which had already been stipulated to as authentic, into the record. Defense Counsel argued it was crucial to have the documents moved into evidence during the presentation of evidence, rather than in closing. The Court stated that in that case the Defense should call the Customs and Border Patrol agent that produced the records. The Prosecution did not object to the Defense calling its private investigator to authenticate the documents. The Court agreed to allow this witness.

At 9:11 a.m., the jury entered the Courtroom. The juror substitution was explained.

The Defense continued its direct examination of Mr. Imad. Mr. Imad testified he obtained a law degree in Syria but was never licensed as an attorney. He worked at his father’s law firm between 2002 and 2011 where he spoke to many types of clients, but never political prisoners. He testified he simultaneously worked at the Syrian Ministry of Justice.

Mr. Imad testified that his family lived in the same building as the Defendant when he was four but only knew this because of his parents.

He stated he visited Adra four to five times to visit his father’s clients. At Adra, he conducted his client meetings in an attorney’s room or in an officer’s private room. He testified he never faced obstacles in meeting with clients. Mr. Imad testified that neither his clients nor other Adra prisoners he met through the Ministry of Justice reported mistreatment or torture.

Defense Counsel attempted to ask Mr. Imad a series of questions about his opinions regarding the Syrian criminal justice system, included asking what the function the Syrian security branches served. Defense Counsel also asked the witness about Syrian criminal history records. The Court sustained Prosecution’s objections to all questions. Defense Counsel moved to qualify Mr. Imad as an expert witness so he could answer. The Court called for a sidebar. Mr. Imad was not qualified as an expert.

After the sidebar, the Defense resumed questioning Mr. Imad about the Syrian prison system. He testified that people who made confessions must put their left thumbprint on a copy of the confession in lieu of a signature. He testified a civil prison—like Adra—was used for prisoners who had gone through the security branches and received a sentence. Mr. Imad testified that civilian prisons were used to finish one’s sentence and serve as rehabilitation. He said that, after serving the sentence, Syrian law allowed for criminal record expungement after some time by the Attorney General.

The Defense asked if Mr. Imad had ever represented murderers. Mr. Imad stated that he had and that not all of these people served the same sentence or were executed. Defense Counsel ended the direct examination.

The Prosecution began its cross-examination. They asked when Mr. Imad began working for the Ministry of Justice. Mr. Imad said he started as a temp before 2000, was promoted to a regular job in 2000, and was promoted in 2004. The Prosecution asked if it was possible in Syria for an individual to simultaneously work for the Syrian Government’s prosecution team while privately representing criminal defendants. Mr. Imad said it was. The Prosecution asked if Mr. Imad’s private clients at Adra, who told him that they were not being mistreated, were aware that he also worked for the prosecutor. Mr. Imad did not answer the question directly, but his response was stricken from the record.

The Prosecution asked if Mr. Imad was aware many Adra detainees were awaiting trial while the Defendant was head of the prison. Mr. Imad said this was true and that Adra had two types of prisoners: those with a sentence and those awaiting a sentence. The Prosecution asked if Mr. Imad was aware of the Syrian criminal justice system’s reputation for corruption. He acknowledged this and said “of course” the Syrian justice system was not fair; he stated he was aware people were locked up for years without trial and for criticizing the Syrian President.

Mr. Imad testified none of the Prosecution’s main fact witnesses in this case were ever his clients. He stated he never worked with political prisoners held at Adra Prison, but he did work with one prisoner who spent six days in solitary confinement. Mr. Imad testified he visited Adra three to five times in total to see two clients. He added he represented many other Adra prisoners who never reported mistreatment. Mr. Imad testified that the Defendant had to give him approval before he could visit his clients. He would meet with the Defendant in his office for coffee or tea and then see his clients in the attorney room. He said each visit was about three hours long and he probably spent fifteen hours at Adra in total. He testified he was forbidden to meet prisoners in their cells and never went to the solitary confinement area in Wing 13.

***

[12-minute break]

10:33 a.m. – 10:45 a.m.

***

After the break, the Defense requested a brief sidebar. After the sidebar, the Prosecution continued questioning Mr. Imad. In response to Prosecution questioning, Mr. Imad testified he was aware that the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Interior, and the security branches in Syria worked closely together. He testified that the security branches often wrote up secret reports of criminal charges before prisoners were charged. The prisoners would stamp their fingerprints first, and then charges would be added later. He testified that, based on his knowledge from his clients and the Ministry of Justice, prisoners at Adra should have known what they were being charged with beforehand.

The Prosecution questioned Mr. Imad about his relationship with the Defendant. Mr. Imad said he did not remember the Defendant when they lived in the same building when he was four years old; his father told him about it later. The Prosecution produced an email Mr. Imad allegedly wrote with the subject line “Samir Al-Sheikh Witness.” He did not remember writing it but acknowledged the email address belonged to him. The email stated he had known the Defendant for forty years, lived in the same building, and had a “strong and solid relationship” with the Defendant. The email said Mr. Imad had been living in the U.S. since 2013 and that he was prepared to testify under oath. The email was signed with “have a great day, Imad.” Mr. Imad said he signed all official emails with his full name. The Prosecution asked if it was true that the FBI approached him about this case and that Mr. Imad had agreed to speak with them in January 2026, but he told the FBI he wanted to speak with the Defendant’s attorneys first and never called the FBI back. Mr. Imad said it was true he wanted to speak to Defendant’s attorneys but denied not calling the FBI back.

The Prosecution asked Mr. Imad about his U.S. immigration status. He had applied for citizenship in December 2020. In 2023, Mr. Imad’s naturalization application was denied for giving false testimony to obtain an immigration benefit. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) found Mr. Imad appeared to be practicing polygamy and, therefore, not a person of good moral character. [The jury was visibly shocked.] Mr. Imad said that none of that was true, even if USCIS said it was, and he had appealed the decision. In 2024, he had a new hearing and was denied again for not being a person of good moral character. Mr. Imad said new issues came up at this hearing, but he appealed again. At the time of this testimony, he was waiting for a final decision. The Prosecution ended the cross-examination.

The Defense conducted re-direct questioning. Mr. Imad testified he spoke to at least 500 clients who were imprisoned at Adra and was exposed to 200-250 prisoners a day who had been at Adra through the Ministry of Justice. He said none of these people ever complained about mistreatment at Adra, only at the security branches. Mr. Imad testified his appeal of his U.S. naturalization application was denied because USCIS misunderstood that he had only been married to one woman “this entire time,” and that the good moral character issue was resolved because, although USCIS said he did not pay child support, he had paid it to his ex-wife. He was still awaiting a decision on his citizenship application, and in the meantime was a legal permanent resident.

The Prosecution conducted its re-cross examination. The Prosecution asked Mr. Imad to confirm that he was “just waiting for a call from USCIS to take the citizenship oath on a six-year-old application.” Mr. Imad said he was denied naturalization three times but only because USCIS had incorrect information and he was still appealing those decisions.

The Prosecution asked why, in Mr. Imad’s testimony on the previous court day [Monday, March 9, 2026], he said he spoke with 250 Adra prisoners, but today said he spoke with 500. Mr. Imad said he didn’t know the exact number, but it was over 250. He said Adra did not have an interrogation room. Mr. Imad clarified he did not speak with all the prisoners he supervised through the Ministry of Justice each day, but that there was no reason for prisoners to be tortured at Adra in order for interrogators to gather information from them, when they were just there to finish their sentence. Mr. Imad was dismissed.

The Defense called FBI Agent David Bartschi as a witness. There was confusion at this point because Prosecution could not locate Mr. Bartschi. The Defense tried to call another witness before Mr. Bartschi entered the courtroom. The Defense moved forward with their questioning.

Mr. Bartschi then testified he had been an FBI special agent since 2022. During his 18-month training at FBI headquarters in Quantico, Virginia, he learned how to conduct interviews and draft reports. Mr. Bartschi testified he conducted multiple interviews with Prosecution witness N.S. and reviewed reports in preparation for his testimony. In February 2026, he interviewed N.S. at the U.S. Attorney’s Office with the Prosecution present, as well as a Homeland Security officer, Daisy Garza. Mr. Bartschi testified that N.S. stated that he was in a motorcycle crash in Syria, drove the victim to the hospital, put the motorcycle in the parking lot, and said he was accused of stealing the motorcycle. This ended the direct examination.

The witness was then asked who represented N.S. Mr. Bartschi responded that N.S.’s attorneys worked for the Center for Justice and Accountability, which represents survivors of atrocities. Mr. Bartschi was dismissed.

The jury was dismissed for the lunch break. Outside the presence of the jury, Judge Vera and Counsel for the parties discussed when to confirm the jury instructions. Defense Counsel stated that the Defense expected and hoped to rest on Friday, March 13, 2026 the following day and that closing arguments could begin Monday, March 16, 2026. Judge Vera stated it would be okay to discuss jury instructions following the close of testimony on Friday.

 ***

[1-hour 10-minute break]

11:55 a.m. – 1:05 p.m.

***

After the break, Defense called John Brown as a witness. Mr. Brown is a private investigator and served as a summary witness for the admittance of certain records. The Defense, through Mr. Brown, admitted a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Encounters History list regarding the Defendant and admitted the Defendant’s U.S. visa interview from August 2018 in Amman, Jordan. The Defense also admitted a joint stipulation. The Judge explained what a joint stipulation was to the jury and the witness was dismissed.

The Defense called Mr. [redacted name] as their next witness. Mr. [redacted name] was a teacher before he retired and currently lives in France. He left Syria in 2011. He testified he never met the Defendant, including when Mr. [redacted name] was imprisoned at Adra. Mr. [redacted name] testified he was teaching in Lebanon from 1995-2002. He participated in the Damascus Spring forums and sit-ins during the first years of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, when there was still hope for a reformed Syria. Mr. [redacted name] testified he engaged in cultural and political activities, hoping for gradual change to a peaceful Syria that celebrated the “rainbow colors” of the Syrian people with room for liberals, nationalists, Islamists, and enlightened people. Mr. [redacted name] testified he was at Riad Seif’s house the night of the announcement of the Damascus Declaration, and was arrested shortly thereafter.

The Defense asked Mr. [redacted name] for the timeline of his arrest. He said he spent five nights in state security branch custody, then was moved to a prison in Kafr Sousa under Mukhabarat (intelligence) control where he was subjected to emotional and psychological mistreatment, put in a solitary cell, and interrogated. He described the conditions at the Kafr Sousa prison—deprivation of food and bathroom access and was unable to leave his cell. He was accused of overthrowing the regime and of forming a secret organization to spread propaganda and create sectarian violence by the Mukhabarat. However, he was unable to articulate why he was being interrogated in response to questions from both Defense and from the Judge.

Mr. [redacted name] described his experience in court after his arrest. After 50 days in Kafr Sousa, he was transferred to Adra Prison and put in a temporary lock-up room, and remained at Adra throughout his trial. He said they shaved his head, but that was common for hygienic reasons. Defense Counsel asked if the court proceedings were fair and Mr. [redacted name] said, “Of course it was.” He testified he had access to his attorneys, human rights advocates were able to attend, and his family was there. Mr. [redacted name] said this was because the United States and European Union were paying close attention to the human rights situation in Syria at the time and, as such, the al-Assad regime wanted to seem like they were concerned with human rights.

Mr. [redacted name] felt he got a light sentence because of this atmosphere; in October 2008 he was sentenced to 2.5 years at Adra, which was a reduced sentence. He was housed in Wing 7, which was for people who had committed sexual crimes, vice, and divorce. He estimated each room had at least 60-65 people and there were fourteen rooms per wing, with approximately 700 people in the wing. Mr. [redacted name] testified he was able to freely communicate with people in his wing, including giving people without attorney's legal advice. Mr. [redacted name] testified he never heard of anyone being mistreated or any bad things happening to prisoners. Defense asked him if anyone expressed fear to him about what’s happening in Adra. Mr. [redacted name] testified no one did. Mr. [redacted name] testified people spent their time cooking, watching TV, playing card games, et cetera. Mr. [redacted name] testified he never heard anyone subjected to torture at all, not at Adra and not at other prisons. There was a continued series of hearsay objections during this point in the questioning.

Mr. [redacted name] said the prisoners he interacted with were normal prisoners, transferred from other civil prisons or from house arrest. He testified he was able to communicate with other people who had signed the Damascus Declaration at Adra, if they were in the same wing.

Mr. [redacted name] testified he knew Kamal al-Labwany and could communicate with him during Friday prayers. He testified they talked frequently but al-Labwany did not express fear about conditions at Adra. Mr. [redacted name] testified he didn’t know anyone who went to solitary confinement and that no one ever mentioned punishment or expressed fear something bad would happen to them in Adra.

Defense asked Mr. [redacted name] about Michel Kilo. Mr. [redacted name] explained Kilo’s role in the opposition in Syria. Mr. [redacted name] then testified Kilo and the Defendant had a close relationship and Kilo would play backgammon with the Defendant. Defense Counsel clarified that Kilo—a “master of the opposition”—was playing backgammon with the warden of Adra. Mr. [redacted name] repeated himself: they played backgammon together.

Mr. [redacted name] testified no one was afraid of the Defendant. He ended his direct testimony by saying he testified because he was a lifelong advocate for truth and wanted to say what he heard and saw with his own eyes.

***

[17-minute-break]

2:40pm – 2:57pm

***

The Prosecution began their cross-examination of Mr. [redacted name]. The Prosecution started by asking Mr. [redacted name] about the timeline of his arrest. Mr. [redacted name] had testified he was arrested in December 2007, but T.A. testified he was arrested in 2005. Mr. [redacted name] said he was arrested in 2007. The Prosecution asked if Kamal al-Labwani was arrested in 2005. Mr. [redacted name] said he was and that he was at Adra in 2005. The Prosecution asked if Mr. [redacted name] was at Adra in 2006. Mr. [redacted name] said he did not get there until 2008. The Prosecution asked if Mr. [redacted name] would have knowledge of things that happened at Adra from 2005-2007. Mr. [redacted name] said he had no direct knowledge of what happened to al-Labwani during that time; that al-Labwani never mentioned anything and Mr. [redacted name] never saw anything.

The Prosecution asked if the Assad regime was still trying to disguise repression of political prisoners in 2008. Mr. [redacted name] responded that the regime completely denied any of them were political prisoners; that they were considered common criminals. The Prosecution asked about Mr. [redacted name]’s placement in a room with the sex offenders. Mr. [redacted name] said he believed they were all placed together because they had come from the security branch but was not sure why he was in with the sex offenders, perhaps because he was one of the oldest arrestees.

The Prosecution attempted to ask Mr. [redacted name] about an Amnesty International report released after the arrest of Mr. [redacted name] and the other twelve people who organized the Damascus Declaration. The parties went into a sidebar, after which the Prosecution pivoted and asked about blankets at Adra. Mr. [redacted name] testified he did not have one on first arrival but had blankets by the fourth day.

Mr. [redacted name] was questioned about Riad Seif’s arrest. However, there were a number of objections from Defense and the witness did not answer. The Prosecution switched to asking Mr. [redacted name] about Ali al-Abdallah, who was one of the twelve. Mr. [redacted name] said Abdallah did not mention anything about mistreatment at Adra. The Prosecution asked if he knew Abdallah wrote an article about Wing 13 and if Mr. [redacted name] was aware Abdallah went to solitary cells in Adra. Mr. [redacted name] said Abdallah was writing an article about the Iranian elections, which happened before Defendant was at Adra. The Prosecution asked if he was aware there was a Wing 13. Mr. [redacted name] said he knew. The Prosecution probed further. Mr. [redacted name] testified “I have not seen or heard anything” and had never been to Wing 13.

The Prosecution ended the cross-examination. The witness was dismissed.

The Defense called their next witness, a man identified as [redacted name] (“L.Z.”). L.Z. was an electrical engineer. He left Syria in 2012 and had resided in France since 2013. The witness ran an internet cafe in Syria and was arrested for the first time in 2008 because his business partner was an army officer who wanted a higher share in the shop. L.Z. testified he was accused of breaking into the shop, but really his business partner had put another lock over L.Z.’s lock, which is why he was forced to break it. He was able to prove it was his shop but was imprisoned in a holding room at Adra during his trial. L.Z. never met Defendant, who was the warden at the time, while he was at Adra. He testified he was allowed free movement through the prison and that they put him into the wing for traffic violations. L.Z. spent about 19 days in Adra.

Judge Vera called a 20-minute break at this point so he could review something. It is unclear what he was reviewing.

L.Z. resumed his testimony at 4:10pm. He testified he spoke to a lot of people because there was nothing else to do. He testified he never heard of any fear of Wing 13.

L.Z. was arrested again in 2008 over a dispute over customs fees relating to his electronics business. This time, he was put into Wing 3, which was for commercial disputes. He testified he was able to talk to prisoners from other wings and could move freely to the library. Defense Counsel asked if he learned of any misconduct of other prisoners. L.Z. said he did not but asked what she meant by misconduct. After clarification, L.Z. testified he never heard of anyone using the shabeh at Adra, that he believed that only happened in the security branch prisons. He said the same for the magic carpet. L.Z. testified he never heard anyone talk about torture at Adra.

The Defense questioned him about the relationship between the prisoners and the guards. L.Z. said it was strong; they were friendly and joked together. L.Z. testified he saw the Defendant once while inspecting the prison and said his presence was not disruptive, and no one felt fear around him, though the guards were a little more formal than usual. L.Z. testified he was in Adra for two months and ten days the second time.

L.Z. was part of the opposition Syrian Democratic People’s Party after his release. He was arrested again in 2011 and again in 2012. This time, he was sent to a security branch prison, where he was treated “very badly.” L.Z. testified he was subjected to different kinds of torture in solitary confinement, that he was in a dark cell, food was scarce. L.Z. testified he was beaten when he was arrested. L.Z. testified he was subjected to the magic carpet and electrocuted as part of being interrogated. In response to Defense’s questioning, L.Z. said different branches had different types of the magic carpet; here, he was tied to a cross affixed to the wall and folded in half, then beaten. L.Z. described being electrocuted and said he suffered severe wounds from this treatment. He said the interrogators “wanted names” of his political party colleagues. He suffered severe back injuries as a result of the mistreatment. He was transferred to court after 45 days, where he was asked to go to Russia and thank the Russians for supporting the regime. L.Z. said he refused.

After he was released, L.Z. testified his home was raided, his shop was monitored, and he was forced into hiding. L.Z. said he was arrested again and taken to the 40th Branch, under state security. L.Z. testified he was accused of illegal arms dealing to the opposition parties. L.Z. said when he denied this, he was arrested in front of his shop, blindfolded, with hands tied, and beaten. After, he was taken to the 40th Branch. There, he was told of his charges and electrocuted.

After, L.Z. testified he was transferred at night to Al-Khatib, another notorious state security branch, in a dark van where he was blindfolded, handcuffed, and beaten along the way.

Following this testimony, the jury was dismissed for the day.

Outside the presence of the jury, Defense Counsel stated they had two more witnesses and expected to rest their case the following day. The Prosecution stated that a rebuttal case was unlikely. The parties anticipated closing arguments could begin on Monday, March 16, 2026.

Day 8 – March 13, 2026

Outside the presence of the jury, Counsel for the parties argued whether the Defense expert’s identity could be made public. The Court ruled that only the expert’s first name could be publicly confirmed.

At approximately 9:06 a.m., the jury entered the courtroom. The Defense continued direct examination of witness L.Z.

L.Z. testified about his detention in Al-Khatib in March 2012. He described being blindfolded during transportation. He described being beaten with electric cables, forced to strip, and forced to move on command. He testified he was confined to an overcrowded cell, around four by six meters, with roughly 185-200 detainees. He testified prisoners were stacked on top of each other and people died of suffocation in the cell. He was whipped when he denied he committed a crime.  

The Prosecution objected because they already stipulated L.Z. was tortured elsewhere and argued the trial concerned Adra. Judge Vera overruled the objection but told Defense Counsel to move on and said the point was already clear.

L.Z. testified after 18 days he was transferred to Kafr Sousa, where he was taken to interrogation. In his cell, he was subjected to the shabeh, hit with cables, forcibly tied up with his back to the wall and hands behind his back, and had buckets of cold water thrown on him if he fell over. He testified his name was on a list of people to sleep next to the door and be taken out at dawn, which made him sure he would be executed. Instead, later that day he was taken to another branch, “Al-Jawiyah” [note: Airforce Intelligence], which refused to accept him, so he was taken back to Kafr Sousa. He was interrogated by officers from both branches and testified the interrogators were looking for information about his weapons dealing. At this point, Judge Vera called counsel to a sidebar.

L.Z. testified the interrogators questioned him about a relative who helped establish that security branch. He responded, “if [my relative] had known that I would be here today, he would not have established this in the first place.” After learning about L.Z.’s family connection, the interrogators switched to asking him about cargo boxes they found in his business. L.Z. said it was humanitarian supplies. The interrogators told him his family were “good people” and told him to stay out of trouble. L.Z testified that he finally started to believe he might not be executed. He remained detained for several more days. He was blindfolded during transport, where he was pushed from a vehicle and told to run.

Defense asked why L.Z. was testifying at this trial. L.Z. said not all regime officers were the same; some tried to mitigate harm. He said he was seeking “transformation.” He contrasted Adra with the security branch prisons, testifying Adra was a place for “serving sentences.” L.Z. said the security branch prisons were used for interrogation and getting confessions. He testified prisoners preferred to go to Adra. [L.Z. became visibly emotional during this portion of testimony.] The Defense ended the direct examination.

On cross-examination, the Prosecution emphasized L.Z.’s detailed testimony occurred at security branch facilities in 2011-2012, not Adra. The Prosecution confirmed L.Z. had been at Adra for a combined total of two months and 19 days. L.Z. stated he had greater mobility than many other prisoners because he had an ID for the library and labor duties across wings.

The Prosecution asked if L.Z. was aware of testimony during the trial that Adra’s population was around 10,000, and there was no way for L.Z. to interact with all the prisoners to know if they had been tortured at Adra. L.Z. acknowledged he did not know everyone, but he was confident his observations represented the overall conditions at Adra as no one had ever said they were tortured there. L.Z. confirmed he did not know any of the three Prosecution witnesses who had testified they were subjected to severe mistreatment at Adra and had never been in Wing 13, though he knew it was for prisoners who had committed drug-related offenses. He said he didn’t know if solitary confinement existed at Adra. L.Z. testified he never received or refused an order from the Defendant and that he had only seen him once during a prison inspection, when everyone had to shape up and look good. L.Z. confirmed he had never met the Defendant in person.

The Prosecution asked about security at Adra. L.Z. testified that guards inside the prison did not carry weapons because prisoners might seize them. Guards outside the prison did carry firearms and batons. L.Z. testified the guards were outnumbered by the prisoners.

***

[20-minute break]

10:45 am – 11:05 am

***

The Prosecution asked about L.Z.’s politics. L.Z. said he was politically active in opposition to the Assad regime and that he also criticized the current Syrian government, which he said were all ISIS who took power by force. He insisted his political views did not affect his testimony. The Prosecution introduced his social media posts criticizing former Syrian leadership and commenting on ongoing repression under the current Syrian government. The Prosecution concluded with questions about L.Z.’s memory; he said he was clear on the events. His political views had nothing to do with his testimony and that he asked only for “true justice.”

On re-direct, Defense Counsel asked if Syrians, including L.Z., suffered under the Assad regime and the current regime. L.Z. said yes. Defense Counsel revisited one of L.Z.’s social media posts that emphasized Syrians remained oppressed after the fall of Assad and stated that their “honorable revolution has been betrayed.” At this point, Defense Counsel visibly teared up. L.Z. stated that “we didn’t do all this to go back to an Islamic system,” and Defense Counsel continued “or for the innocent to pay for the crimes of the guilty?” L.Z. said yes, and “for our children to have better lives.” The witness was dismissed.

The Defense called its last witness, Ms. [redacted name] (“H.”). The Court had previously ordered that H. could only be identified by her first name. She is L.Z.’s wife and had resided in France since 2013. H. described her human rights work in Syria. Beginning around 2002, she documented arrests, detention conditions, and allegations of torture by gathering information from detainees and their families. She transmitted that information to human rights organizations. She testified that she joined one such organization in 2007 and another in 2009.

H. testified she received awards for her work, including one from the U.S. State Department and two from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Italy and Germany. She was published in various Syrian human rights publications, including the Syrian Women’s Network. She had previously testified for the prosecution in other Syria-related cases. H. published under multiple pseudonyms from 2002-2012 because she could be arrested for writing about human rights under the Assad regime. H. mentioned her three brothers died in sectarian violence under the current Syrian government.

On Defense Counsel’s motion, the Court qualified H. as an expert. Neither Defense Counsel nor the Court specified the subject(s) on which H. was qualified as an expert.

***

[1-hour-18-minute break]

11:57 am – 1:15 pm

***

Defense Counsel asked H. to elaborate on the work she performed for the human rights organizations. She testified they provided psychological and legal support, disclosed detainee locations, and provided post-release medical and mental health support. She testified information was gathered and shared in real time with NGOs and the families of detainees.

Defense Counsel asked H. to describe the political climate under the Assad regime and the effects of international pressure on prison conditions. She said some political detainees were placed in civilian prisons instead of facilities such as Sednaya. H. testified prisoners at Adra had greater access to lawyers, better food, and better information for families, although it was still not totally transparent.

Defense Counsel asked about the Damascus Declaration. H. said she attended the public court proceedings regarding the detainees from the Damascus Declaration. H. testified the proceedings had many public observers because it was symbolically important. The Defense asked if the regime wanted to mistreat high profile detainees at Adra when they were under scrutiny. H. said no, because in the mid-2000s the Assad regime faced pressure from Western countries including France and that the high-profile political prisoners were writing letters and articles to the outside world. She testified that they would have been transferred to security branch facilities or military prison if the regime wanted to mistreat them, not to Adra. H. testified that, to her, “it’s an impossible thing” to harm a political prisoner in a civil prison.

H. testified that, based on her work, Adra had comparatively better conditions than security branch facilities and that detention conditions were the “best in all civil prisons in Syria.” She said Adra had beds, regular access to food, visitation privileges, and hygiene access. H. testified detainees’ families had information that matched her organization’s documentation. Defense asked if she received reports of severe mistreatment at Adra, especially regarding the signatories of the Damascus Declaration. H. said no. She testified that solitary confinement existed as a punishment, but she never received reports about vermin or sewage in the solitary cells from 2005-2008.  H. testified that getting sent to Adra was “a wish and a hope” of every prisoner. H. volunteered at several points that Adra’s conditions were “better” or “acceptable,” even when Counsel had not asked in those exact terms.

The Defense asked H. about the Defendant. H. testified she knew the Defendant served as Adra’s director until 2009. She received no negative reports about him. She testified she knew of Kamal al-Labwani and believed the Assad regime would not have subjected him to mistreatment because of the high level of scrutiny from the international community. H. testified she would have known if there were reports of mistreatment tied to attempted communications with al-Labwani. Defense Counsel tried to ask about al-Labwani’s statement after his release. The Prosecution objected and Judge Vera called a sidebar.

After the sidebar, Defense asked H. about Mohammad Mamoun Al-Homsi, who was a political prisoner and former parliament member. She testified she received no reports that Mr. Al-Homsi had been poisoned or targeted by Defendant H. testified she knew of another prominent opposition leader at Adra, Michel Kilo. H. testified she received information that Mr. Kilo and the Defendant played backgammon together and were friendly.

H. testified that, after an internal disturbance in 2007, the Syrian military’s Fourth Division effectively took over the prison, marginalizing Defendant’s authority over the existing administration. H. said control no longer belonged solely to Defendant after that point.

***

[12-min break]

2:48 pm – 3:00 pm

***

H. testified she was arrested three times by the Assad regime, detained in multiple facilities, including military intelligence facilities, and was humiliated and assaulted. She testified her first arrest caused a back injury. The third time, she was imprisoned at Adra. Defense Counsel asked her why she testified. H. said the allegations against the Defendant were serious but risked injustice and that she wanted truth without injustice inflicted on anyone else because she’d suffered under the Assad regime and the current Syrian government, which had killed her three brothers. The Defense concluded the direct examination.

On cross-examination, the Prosecution suggested H. was more than happy to pass judgment without having heard all the evidence. H. said she was there to give what she knew. When the Prosecution pressed her, H. said it was “very difficult” to say she did not know anything important.

The Prosecution asked H. how many Adra prisoners she interviewed from 2005 to 2008. H. said she personally interviewed about “fifteen political prisoners” during that period of time. On questioning, H. said she was not surprised to hear the estimated population at Adra was around 10,000, and said that some people classified as political prisoners were not really political.

H. testified that she did not know the specific Prosecution witnesses who testified they had been severely mistreated at Adra and she did not read their interview reports. She also testified that she did not know Dr. Leenders, the Prosecution’s expert, and had not reviewed his report on Adra’s conditions from 2000 to 2013. When the Prosecution asked if her expert opinion was not reliable or accurate if based on incomplete information, H. stated that her opinion was reliable in the context of the Prosecution’s questions. H. confirmed that she had not written an expert report summarizing her opinions testified to, though she had previously reported on Syrian prison conditions which had been published. At this point, Judge Vera requested a sidebar with Counsel.

The Prosecution asked if H. knew the Defendant publicly stated Adra could house 2,000 inmates even though the population reached 6,000. H. said she did not know, but that Adra was not overcrowded until 2011 and after. The Prosecution asked if H. had reviewed a 2010 report from a Geneva-based NGO, a 2015 report from the Syrian Commission for Transitional Justice [as mentioned in court] and court decisions from France and the Netherlands, all of which described beatings, abuse, or torture at Adra. H. testified she was not familiar with or had not fully reviewed those materials, but had read hundreds of reports about Syrian prisons for many years. H. said she knew there was beating at Adra, but had not received information about torture at Adra to the extent someone would die from it. She stated that torture could be physical or psychological, could be for the pleasure of the executioner or for information that could lead to death, but not at Adra. She repeatedly distinguished Adra from security branch prisons and insisted that if systematic torture had occurred in Adra, she would have known through her networks. H. testified that Adra was not the “ideal place” for the regime to commit torture.

The Prosecution asked if H. was aware of the Adele A. asylum case in France, involving the former head of medical services at Adra from 1999-2006. H. was not. The Prosecution asked if H. was aware the French court had stated it was “not under discussion” that the Assad regime practiced torture against political prisoners at Adra from 1999-2006 and 2010-2012. H. was not.

The Prosecution asked if H. was familiar with a Netherlands asylum case from 2023 regarding a Syrian police officer from 1993-2010. H. was not. The Prosecution asked if H. was aware the Netherlands court stated that suspects of common crimes were subjected to torture at all prisons in Syria, in particular Adra. H. stated that she knew prisoners were beaten on their feet at Adra, but that more severe forms of mistreatment occurred in military prisons and secret underground centers. H. insisted that “this is what I know.”

The Prosecution then asked H. about her own detention at Adra. She acknowledged that she had been detained there twice in the women’s prison, in 2011 for less than two months and in 2012 for approximately 20 days, but both periods occurred after the Defendant’s tenure as director had ended. Prosecution then concluded the cross-examination.

On re-direct, Defense Counsel asked if, based on her experience, documentation, and expertise, the severe mistreatment described by the Prosecution witnesses was possible at Adra. H. said no. Defense Counsel asked about the French and Netherlands cases referenced by the Prosecution and noted that they were “conclusions by foreigners,” in contrast with H.’s testimony which came from firsthand knowledge, direct data collection, and personal experience. H. agreed and maintained that she lived in Syria and “saw it all firsthand.”

The Defense concluded its re-direct and rested its case. The Prosecution declined to put on a rebuttal case. At approximately 4:50pm, the jury was dismissed for the day.

Outside the presence of the jury, Defense Counsel asked that it be put on the record that the Prosecution had been reading from the French and Dutch court decisions during its cross-examination of H., which was improper evidence.

The discussion then turned to jury instructions. The Court confirmed there were no issues with Joint Proposed Instructions 14, 15, 20, 22, and 23. The Court struck 16 and 29; provided minor edits to 17 and 18; and 21 was subject to proposed changes.

The Court then addressed the disputed instructions. On the Prosecution's Proposed Instruction 2, relating to the charge of conspiracy to commit torture, the Court stated it would give the instruction as per the Ninth Circuit without the Defense's proposed language.

The most extensive argument concerned Prosecution's Proposed Instruction 3, defining torture under 18 U.S.C. § 2340(1). The Court noted that the Proposed Instruction contained a number of changes and wanted to hear arguments on the Defense's proposed language regarding the meaning of serious bodily harm. The Prosecution argued that the Defense's proposed language was not included in the statutory definition. Defense Counsel referenced the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memoranda in effect during the 2005–2007 period, which were written in the wake of alleged U.S. torture committed at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere and which attempted to define the level of pain and suffering that constitutes torture, and how to distinguish the Convention Against Torture, on which Section 2340 was based. The Prosecution responded that the Defense was cherry-picking from regulations and the instruction should not stray from the statutory definition. Defense argued that the statute did not define physical pain and suffering directly. After further suggestions from Counsel, the Court indicated it would follow the language found in 8 C.F.R. 208.18 regarding U.S. implementation of the Convention Against Torture.

The Court then turned to the distinction between “specifically committing an act” and “specific intent to inflict.” Defense cited U.S. v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 403-405 (1980), regarding the distinction between general intent and specific intent. The Court noted the language mirrored the “intent to achieve the consequences of act” and was acceptable.

On the Prosecution's Proposed Instruction 4 regarding foreign law, the Court stated it would accept the first sentence but not the second, characterizing the second as quasi-factual findings.

On the Prosecution's Proposed Instruction 5 regarding the elements of naturalization fraud, the Court noted significant differences between the parties. The parties agreed on the first three elements, but disputed the definition of materiality and the unanimity requirement. The Court found the Defense's proposed language regarding materiality as an element of the crime, rather than forming part of the definition, was more persuasive and adopted it in a modified form.

On unanimity, the Court referenced U.S. v. Lyons (9th Cir. 2007), noting that unanimity was not required where multiple false statements constituted the means rather than an element of the offense. The Prosecution argued that it was enough for every juror to agree that there was a false statement, without needing unanimity as to which false statement. Defense Counsel cited Shad v. A.Z., 501 U.S. 624, arguing that with twelve alleged false statements representing a vast range of conduct, due process required the jury to identify which specific statements it found false and material in a special verdict form. The Prosecution argued that where a series of false statements appeared on a single page of a form, the jury did not need to be unanimous regarding each allegation. Defense Counsel responded that without a unanimity instruction, each juror could believe a different false statement was material, and the Defendant would not know what the jury convicted on. The Court stated it agreed with the Defense’s position on this issue, citing potential due process concerns.

On the Prosecution's proposed Instruction 6 regarding aiding and abetting and causing another to commit torture, the parties debated whether to include a definition of willfulness. Defense Counsel cited the First Circuit model instruction, while the Prosecution noted the Ninth Circuit did not require willfulness at all. The Court questioned the need for additional definition, finding the Defense's proposed language somewhat circular.

On the Prosecution's proposed Instruction 7 regarding non-unanimity on Counts 5 and 6, the Court stated it would not give a non-unanimity instruction if a special verdict form was used. Defense Counsel stated it wanted an unanimity instruction as to at least one false statement. The Prosecution argued that the jury must agree there was a false statement but need not agree on which one. The Court stated it had heard all it needed and would finalize the instructions and special verdict form and inform counsel via email over the weekend. The Court noted the parties would have an opportunity on Monday, March 16 to correct errors, that each juror would receive a copy to read along, and that Instructions 23 through 44, if jointly agreed, would be given. The Court also ordered that the Defense’s updated witness list, which appeared under seal at Docket Entry 261, be unsealed. The Prosecution had no objection.

Court was adjourned at approximately 6:45 p.m.

 ___________________________

For more information or to provide feedback, please contact SJAC at [email protected] and follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to SJAC’s newsletter for updates on our work