Trial I · US v. Farah

Vol XXX

2024-06-07

Day Overview

On the afternoon of June 7, 2024, the jury returned unanimous verdicts in US v. Farah. Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz presided in place of Judge Brasel, who was traveling. The jury convicted five of the seven defendants on multiple counts and fully acquitted two. Said Shafii Farah (Defendant 5) was acquitted on all counts. Abdiwahab Maalim Aftin (Defendant 6) was acquitted on all counts. The remaining five defendants — Abdiaziz Shafii Farah, Mohamed Jama Ismail, Abdimajid Mohamed Nur, Mukhtar Mohamed Shariff, and Hayat Mohamed Nur — were convicted on the core conspiracy count (Count 1) and various wire fraud, money laundering, and bribery counts, though each received some acquittals on individual counts. Critically, the government immediately raised on the record that a juror bribery attempt had occurred, and the court imposed a no-contact order with all jurors pending further proceedings before Judge Brasel.

Government Strategy

Volume XXX contains no testimony, no evidence presentation, and no legal argument. This is the verdict proceeding only. The government's sole act was a post-verdict motion requesting that all attorneys, parties, and their agents be prohibited from contacting jurors without court permission — explicitly premised on 'the attempt to bribe a juror in this case.' No government trial strategy was advanced on this day.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

The split verdict is the most important strategic data point in this volume. Said Shafii Farah (Defendant 5, represented by Schleicher/Carlson) and Abdiwahab Maalim Aftin (Defendant 6, represented by Garvis) were fully acquitted on all counts. Defense counsel should obtain and study those defense teams' trial strategies, cross-examination approaches, and closing arguments in detail — they successfully differentiated their clients from the convicted defendants in the same trial.
Selective count acquittals for convicted defendants reveal jury reasoning: Abdiaziz Farah was acquitted on Count 2 (wire fraud) but convicted on Counts 5-11, 13-14, 17, 20, 22-26, 29, 32-33, 37, 39, 42-43. Abdimajid Nur was acquitted on Counts 24, 25, and 29 (money laundering) but convicted on others. Hayat Nur was acquitted on Count 4 (wire fraud) and Count 34 (money laundering). These selective acquittals suggest the jury was engaged in careful count-by-count analysis rather than rubber-stamping — meaning the evidence on each specific transaction matters and can be challenged.
The juror bribery allegation — stated on the record by the government at page 6939 — is a serious post-trial issue. Defense counsel must determine: (a) which defendant(s) are implicated; (b) whether this allegation was used to taint the jury during deliberations; (c) whether it affected any bail or detention rulings; and (d) whether any convicted defendant can use this as grounds for a new trial motion based on jury tampering concerns cutting in both directions.
Abdimajid Nur's lead counsel (Sapone) was absent at the verdict. While Nur consented on the record, this is a potential appellate and post-conviction issue, particularly if Sapone was absent for any reason connected to case strategy rather than a purely unrelated scheduling conflict. The record at page 6925 reflects only a brief explanation.
Kara Lomen and Partners in Nutrition are notably absent from the verdict volume — she was never charged, never called as a government witness, and never interviewed by the FBI. For defense counsel's case, this remains the central unanswered question: why the primary sponsor executive who controlled claim submissions, disabled error checks, and processed the majority of program money was never prosecuted while others were. This disparity may be powerful mitigation or a Brady/selective prosecution argument depending on what the government knew about Lomen's conduct.

Legal Rulings & Objections

⚖

Chief Judge Schiltz presided over verdict proceedings in place of Judge Brasel, who was absent due to pre-scheduled travel to Washington, D.C. Mr. Sapone (counsel for Abdimajid Nur) was also absent due to a conflicting New York hearing; Kaitlyn Falk (from the Shariff defense team) sat with Nur after both Nur and Shariff consented on the record. — Both Nur and Shariff confirmed on the record their consent to proceed with substitute counsel arrangements. Defense counsel should note this as a potential issue for post-conviction motions if either defendant challenges adequacy of representation at the verdict stage. [p. 6924-6926]

⚖

Following the verdicts, AUSA Thompson moved for a no-contact order prohibiting all attorneys, defendants, and their agents from contacting any jurors without court permission, citing 'the attempt to bribe a juror in this case.' The court granted the order immediately and made it indefinite pending further proceedings before Judge Brasel on Monday. — The government's explicit reference to a juror bribery attempt on the record is a significant post-trial development. This allegation may affect sentencing, may generate additional charges, and almost certainly colored how the court viewed the defendants going forward. Defense counsel must review the full record of the juror bribery allegation to understand which defendant(s) it was attributed to and whether it affected any trial rulings or the jury's deliberations. [p. 6939]

Prior Defense Performance

There is no defense performance to assess in this volume — no testimony, no cross-examination, no objections. Defense counsel's only act was Mr. Mohring's procedural question about whether the no-contact order was time-limited. The mixed verdict results (two full acquittals out of seven defendants, plus multiple count-level acquittals for convicted defendants) suggest that at least some defense teams effectively distinguished their clients from the core conspiracy. Said Farah's full acquittal on all nine counts — including Count 1 conspiracy — is the most significant defense victory and warrants close study of what Schleicher/Carlson did differently.