⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Eleventh Circuit hears Hadad's challenge to a federal carjacking conviction arising from a dispute over recovering a customer's car. The customer had bought a Honda from a dealership that Hadad operated with his sons. Hadad has described his conduct as an attempt to repossess the vehicle, not an attempt to hurt the customer. The prosecution's account describes a confrontation that escalated: Hadad followed the customer, removed the Honda's temporary license tag at an intersection, and followed him again after he drove away. Prosecutors say that, at a train station, Hadad demanded the keys and lifted his shirt to reveal a gun at his waistband. According to that account, the customer surrendered the keys, and police arrested Hadad at the scene. That is the prosecution's description of the encounter; the meaning of the gun evidence is sharply contested in the argument you will hear. The federal carjacking charge requires more than showing that the customer was frightened: it requires an intent to cause death or serious bodily harm when taking the vehicle. That distinction explains why an attempted repossession, an intimidating demand, and the presence of a gun do not end the lawyers' discussion. Listen for whether the circumstances support an inference of the required intent, and for the difference between what a jury did not find proved and what evidence an appeals court may consider. Finally, keep the possible remedies separate: a new trial is not a judgment of acquittal. As the lawyers discuss errors at trial and the sufficiency of the evidence, listen for which of those two questions each argument addresses.

United States v. Erik Hadad (No. 25-10465) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued November 4, 2026.