ILNews

7th Circuit addresses 'khat' convictions for first time

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on many types of drug cases, but was presented with a new drug to consider for the first time: “khat,” a popular drug among the Somali community.

Jama Mire and Hassan Rafle became involved in a conspiracy to distribute khat in the Indianapolis area. Khat is the common name for the plant having leaves that are chewed or soaked in tea. Khat is not illegal, but the plant contains two controlled substances,
cathinone and cathine, that are used to combat fatigue.

Mire’s business, the Somali House of Coffee, served as a place where people could get the drugs and enjoy in comfort. Government agents received a tip from a concerned Somali man about this khat-distribution conspiracy and launched an investigation into it. Mire and Rafle were each convicted on one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cathinone. Mire was also convicted of knowingly using or maintaining a place for the purpose of distributing and using cathinone; and possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing cathinone.

The defendants challenged the government testimony by Drug Enforcement Administration chemists regarding the testing of khat plants for cathinone, claiming the testing procedures underlying the experts’ testimony were unreliable and incomplete.

The district court conducted a Daubert hearing on the motion and denied the motion to exclude.

In United States of America v. Jama Mire and Hassan Rafle, 12-2792, 12-2793, the men contended that their due process rights were violated because the Controlled Substance Act and its corresponding regulations do not provide fair warning that the possession of khat may be illegal. This argument is one of first impression in the 7th Circuit, Judge William Bauer noted, but all of the other Circuits that have considered it have rejected it.

The statutes at issue here require “actual knowledge” that khat contains a controlled substance and contain a scienter requirement.

“Like our sister circuits who have considered the regulations involving khat, we are mindful that ‘it would be helpful to people, who actually resort to statutes and regulations to determine whether their conduct is lawful, for Congress, through the statutory or regulatory scheme, to include the word “khat” in the CSA,’” Bauer wrote. “This is especially true considering that not all khat leaves contain cathinone or cathine and that other plants containing controlled substances are specifically listed in the schedules. But this does not invalidate the statutes at issue on Due Process grounds; the Defendants’ fair warning challenge fails.”

The men also claimed the District Court erred under Daubert in admitting the government’s expert testimony regarding the chemical composition of the khat leaves tested.

“To find in the Defendants’ favor, we would have to write an additional element into the offenses: that khat leaves must have a ‘certain amount’ of cathinone versus ‘any quantity.’ That is not our job, and we decline to do so,” the court ruled. “The Defendants’ argument that a qualitative assessment is insufficient because it does not say ‘how much’ cathinone or cathine is in a given leaf or plant easily fails; the district court correctly rejected it.”

The 7th Circuit also rejected Mire’s double jeopardy challenge to his convictions and his claim that the government didn’t provide sufficient evidence to support his convictions.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT