10th Circuit: Wahhaj Parental Authority Kidnapping Convictions Overturned

• The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated kidnapping convictions for family members involved in the death of a 3-year-old child at a New Mexico compound.
• The court found no federal kidnapping occurred because the father, Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, had inherent custody of his son, Abdul Ghani, and no court order made taking the child unlawful.
• Convictions for Siraj Ibn Wahhaj and Lucas Morton for providing material support to kill federal officers were also vacated due to their exclusion from jury-note conferences.
• Siraj Ibn Wahhaj's sisters and brother-in-law cannot be retried on kidnapping charges, but Ibn Wahhaj and Morton can be retried on the federal officer charges.
• The child died after anti-seizure medication was withheld and daily exorcisms were performed at the remote compound.

Central to the appellate court's decision on the kidnapping charges was the finding that no federal kidnapping crime had occurred.

The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned several convictions related to the tragic death of a 3-year-old child at a remote New Mexico compound. In a unanimous decision issued Tuesday, the Denver-based appellate court vacated the kidnapping convictions of family members involved in taking the child, Abdul Ghani, from his mother without her consent. The court determined that the trial judge had provided a misleading instruction to the jury regarding the legal definition of kidnapping.

Specifically, the court ruled that Siraj Ibn Wahhaj's two sisters, Hujrah and Subhanah Wahhaj, and his brother-in-law, Lucas Morton, cannot be retried on the conspiracy to commit kidnapping and kidnapping resulting in death charges. Additionally, the 10th Circuit vacated convictions for Siraj Ibn Wahhaj and Lucas Morton on charges of conspiracy to provide material support to kill federal officers and actually providing such support. These two individuals, however, remain eligible for retrial on the federal officer-related charges.

Central to the appellate court's decision on the kidnapping charges was the finding that no federal kidnapping crime had occurred. U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Phillips, writing for the unanimous panel, clarified that Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, as Abdul Ghani's natural parent, possessed "inherent" custody over his son. The court found no existing court orders or state laws that would have rendered it unlawful for Ibn Wahhaj to take Abdul Ghani from his mother, Hakima Ramzi, in Georgia, despite her lack of consent.

The government had argued that the absence of consent from either the child or his mother made the taking unlawful. However, Judge Phillips emphasized that while the defendants' actions were "unattractive and immoral" and "wrong," they did not meet the criteria for a federal kidnapping offense. This distinction highlights the narrow scope of federal jurisdiction in parental custody matters, particularly when no legal authority has previously intervened to disrupt a natural parent's inherent rights.

The vacating of the convictions for conspiracy to provide material support to kill federal officers stemmed from a procedural error during the trial. Siraj Ibn Wahhaj and Lucas Morton, who represented themselves with the assistance of standby attorneys, were improperly excluded from bench conferences with the judge concerning two notes sent by the jury during deliberations. Judge Phillips stated that this exclusion infringed upon the pro se defendants' right to make tactical decisions and speak for themselves on crucial matters.

The tragic events unfolded in late 2017 when Ibn Wahhaj, Morton, and Ibn Wahhaj's sisters took the child, who suffered from various developmental conditions, from his mother. This action was reportedly at the behest of Jany Leveille, who claimed Abdul Ghani was her son and possessed by evil spirits. The group eventually settled at a remote compound in New Mexico with other children. Testimony from boys at the compound during a 2023 trial revealed that Ibn Wahhaj and others withheld the child's anti-seizure medication and subjected him to daily exorcisms until his death, after which his body was concealed in an underground tunnel. Leveille had reportedly told the group that the child would be reincarnated as Isa.

This ruling from the 10th Circuit underscores critical legal boundaries concerning federal intervention in family disputes and the procedural rights of defendants. It clarifies that even in situations deemed morally reprehensible, federal charges like kidnapping require specific legal predicates, such as a prior court order or state law, to override a natural parent's inherent custody rights. The decision reinforces the principle that while an act may be "wrong," it does not automatically constitute a federal crime without meeting precise statutory definitions.

Furthermore, the vacating of the material support convictions highlights the importance of upholding the procedural rights of pro se defendants, ensuring they are not unfairly disadvantaged even when choosing to represent themselves. The unanimous nature of the Denver-based court's decision lends significant weight to these interpretations, providing important guidance on the limits of federal jurisdiction and the requirements for fair trial proceedings.

Source: Reporting based on AP and The Albuquerque Journal