THE TRIAL OF SAMIR Al SHEIKH
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Trial Monitoring Summary #1
Hearing Date: August 30, 2024
CAUTION: Some testimony includes descriptions of torture.
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.”
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. 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.
I. INTRODUCTION
Samir Ousman Alsheikh (“Defendant” or “Alsheikh”) was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport (“LAX”) on July 10, 2024 for making false statements on his applications for permanent residency and U.S. citizenship. These applications required applicants to disclose any previous history or involvement in any extrajudicial killings, violent acts, or political persecution. However, from 2005 to 2008 Alsheikh was the head of the Damascus Central Prison, which was notorious for the severe mistreatment of prisoners and alleged torture under Alsheikh’s supervision. He did not disclose this prior involvement.
Since his arrest, Alsheikh has been held at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”), the federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles. On August 22, 2024, Alsheikh filed a Corrected Application for Review/Reconsideration of Order Setting Conditions of Release/Detention (“Application”), seeking to be released from detention pending trial.
On Friday, August 30, 2024, at 11:00 am, the hearing on the Application was called before Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in United States v. Alsheikh, Case No. 2:24-cr-00483-HDV. An Arabic translator was present and spoke directly in real-time to the Defendant through a headset. Joshua O. Mauser appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff United States (“Plaintiff” or “United States”), and Peter Hardin appeared on behalf of the Defendant Samir Ousman Alsheikh (“Defendant” or “Alsheikh”).
Before the hearing began, Defendant’s entry into the courtroom took on a spectacle-like nature. Approximately 25 members of the public stood outside the courtroom waiting for entry prior to the hearing. The crowd parted abruptly against the walls as the Defendant was escorted by law enforcement into the courtroom in restraints. Several supporters and family members called out to the Defendant in Arabic as Alsheikh was escorted into the courtroom. Once inside the courtroom, the Bailiff prevented any member of the public from sitting on the left side of the courtroom nearest Alsheikh, instead directing everyone into three rows of pews behind counsel for the United States. The podium and a monitor for the translator blocked the view of the Defendant entirely from many members of the public.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142, criminal defendants in pre-trial detention may be released on bond, “unless the judicial officer determines that such release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community.”
A. Whether Alsheikh Was a Flight Risk
Mr. Hardin began by noting that Defendant was not a flight risk and that bond conditions could aid in mitigating the risk. Mr. Hardin portrayed Alsheikh and his family, many of which were present in the audience, as the definition of the American dream after fleeing Syria during the Arab Spring. He further depicted the family as everyday Southern Californians from Orange County and Long Beach who worked white-collar jobs and were “typical soccer parents.” Although Alsheikh immigrated to the United States later than his family, he and his family members had planted roots in the United States after they legally became citizens. Mr. Hardin noted that three of Alsheikh’s four children (all adults) live in Southern California, and so do his grandchildren (age two or three) who were also present in the audience. Mr. Hardin used this information to argue that Alsheikh “doesn’t want to run, he wants to stay and knows that running will truly ruin his kids’ lives in the States.” However, in a later exchange with counsel for the United States, Mr. Hardin later described the Defendant as “a stranger in a strange land,” depicting his time in the United States, as Mr. Mauser argued, an “only temporary” solution to “escape a violent past.”
Mr. Hardin further argued that the Defendant was not a flight risk due to “serious health conditions.” He described the Defendant as a “decrepit” 73-year-old man with chronic back pain, potential throat cancer, and three rotting teeth causing an infection to his jaw. Counsel Hardin stated that at the MDC, the federal detention center where Defendant was being held, the Defendant was not receiving appropriate health care despite his requests and that MDC’s Arabic interpreters spoke a different dialect, making it impossible for Defendant to comprehend what they were saying. In the courtroom, every time Mr. Hardin mentioned the Defendant’s health concerns, Alsheikh would cough loudly (and only ever at these moments). Mr. Hardin argued that the jaw infection was exactly why Alsheikh was at LAX airport on the date of his arrest, because he required oral surgery that was much cheaper to perform in Syria than in the United States. Mr. Hardin argued that Defendant’s use of a one-way ticket to Beirut, Lebanon, where the main international airport is frequently closed periodically due to the war in Gaza, is common and even necessary, and that travelers to Lebanon in most circumstances travel with cash. He admitted that at the time of arrest the Defendant was traveling with approximately $6,000 USD in cash.
In contrast, counsel for the United States, Mr. Mauser, depicted the Defendant as a serious flight risk. He noted that Syria, alongside North Korea and Cuba, has no extradition treaty with the United States and zero diplomatic relations with the United States, making it improbable to relocate the Defendant if he left the country and amplifying his flight risk. Defendants escaping to those three states are “rarely extradited” and held responsible for their wrongdoings.
Mr. Mauser further noted that Alsheikh was the head of Adra prison and had previously served as a Syrian governor. When apprehended at LAX, his phone contained several high-level Syrian government contacts, whether from years prior or current, such as the current head of security intelligence, the former security director, the current Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, and Mahar al Assad (the brother of Syrian president Bashar Al Assad). Mr. Mauser noted that the Defendant also has one child and grandchildren who still live in Syria and owns a house worth $300,000 in USD. Thus, he argued that bond resources were inadequate to mitigate flight risk and other solutions such as an ankle bracelet would be easy to remove and escape.
B. Whether Alsheikh Posed a Danger to the Community
Mr. Hardin argued that the Defendant has been a “law-abiding citizen” during his time in the United States and has no criminal record. Furthermore, Mr. Hardin claimed that the witnesses in the case are not afraid of the Defendant and thus he poses no danger because they are outspoken human rights advocates. He stated that “these folks [activists] with their YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook are not scared because they know that they cannot be touched.” Rather, Mr. Hardin argued that the human rights advocates are using Alsheikh as a “tool” to “get the real people [perpetrators] arrested” for their alleged crimes in Syria and that “he’s not the target, the regime is” of the influencers. Mr. Hardin also argued that the crimes Alsheikh is alleged to have committed while in Syria have not been proven and would have occurred over a decade ago, framing this issue as a factual dispute for a jury to decide.
In contrast, Mr. Mauser argued that the Defendant posed a danger to the community and in particular the witnesses that have come forward in discovery. He argued that the Defendant’s detention is the only reason that many of the witnesses had spoken up, because they knew he could not retaliate against them or intimidate them out of testifying. Allowing bond resources would arguably place these witnesses at risk as well as risk sullying a fair trial.
Further, Mr. Mauser argued that Alsheikh was also the head of Adra prison, a prison allegedly known for the immense torture, cruelty, and mistreatment of prisoners. Typically, federal sentencing guidelines recommend 57 months for conviction for immigration fraud; however, an enhancement existed that would increase the sentence to 25 years for involvement in “serious human rights offenses.” “Serious” was defined as a violation of human rights law pertaining to but not limited to genocide, torture, or the recruitment of child soldiers. According to Mr. Mauser, in the United States, sentencing guidelines for torture are equivalent to that of both assault and kidnapping. Mr. Mauser noted that, although discovery is still underway, dozens of victims/witnesses had recently come forward that corroborated the alleged mistreatment, beatings, and torture from their experience in the Adra prison for which the Defendant was responsible. Mr. Mauser described some of the torture techniques mentioned by witnesses, such as the “flying carpet” (a wooden folding torture device), suspended crucifixes, cable whippings, heads placed in tires, imprisonment to chairs for days, and burns with metal cattle prods, amongst other acts of physical and sexual violence. Mr. Mauser argued that bond resources would not mitigate the danger to the public because Alsheikh would be excused from answering his past wrongdoings as well as his current immigration crimes.
Finally, Mr. Mauser argued that Alsheikh has no criminal record in the United States only because he has been here a short period of time, and additionally it made sense that Defendant would try to “lay low” because “his real goal was to hide from his past.”
III. OUTCOME
The Court denied the Application, finding that the Defendant presented signs of serious flight risk. His strong ties to a country with no U.S. diplomatic relations, family connections in Syria, and connections with high-ranking members of the Syrian government “are not the only factors but one of the factors” that demonstrated a danger to the community. While this was a “very unique case” because of Alsheikh’s lack of criminal history in the United States, Judge Donahue stated that she “cannot ignore the horrific allegations mentioned in the affidavit and the complaint.” She further stated that it was credible that witnesses would be afraid of the Defendant or his influence if he was not detained.
Accordingly, the Court ordered that the Defendant be detained pending trial. The Court also issued a medical abstract to the MDC to ensure the Defendant received appropriate medical care and/or a different interpreter to assist with his health concerns, including a note for a dental examination.
Trial remains scheduled to begin on October 1, 2024.
___________________________
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