by TChris

When the government's only witness in a criminal prosecution is a dead terrorist, the government might want to rethink its decision to prosecute. But the absence of reliable evidence that a crime was committed doesn't stop the Justice Department, which is asking a judge to detain Ahmed Omar Abu Ali without bail despite its apparent inability to prove its case.

Abu Ali was arrested in Saudi Arabia, where he had gone to study. His detention without charges in Saudi Arabia eventually provoked a lawsuit by his family against the United States on the ground that the U.S. engineered his arrest and continuing detention and acquiesced in his torture. The lawsuit evidently persuaded the government to bring Abu Ali to the United States so it could pursue terrorism charges against him. An indictment was unsealed this week in Virginia.

The government claims that Abu Ali discussed the assassination of President Bush while in Saudi Arabia, but the only witness to that alleged discussion was killed by Saudi authorities 17 months ago. The absence of evidence didn't stop the government from seeking to continue Abu Ali's detention without bail after his return to the United States. Even if it prevails in that request, the prosecution may ultimately be doomed.

[Federal] officials said they worried that the prosecution, by relying on information from overseas intelligence sources, could become bogged down in legal difficulties like those that have stalled the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, and could also become overshadowed by allegations from Mr. Abu Ali's family that he was tortured in Saudi custody with the knowledge of American officials. A federal terrorism prosecutor at the Justice Department said the defense is almost certain to raise accusations that the testimony of foreign detainees was tainted by alleged torture. The prosecutor added, "I think it's going to make it very difficult for the government to make its case."

Fox News Sr. Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano rocks today in his passionately defense of New York defense attorney Lynne Stewart in the New York Times.

Ms. Stewart's constitutional right to speak to the news media about a matter of public interest is absolute and should prevent the government from prosecuting her. And since when does announcing someone else's opinion about a cease-fire - as Ms. Stewart did, saying the sheik no longer supported one that had been observed in Egypt - amount to advocating an act of terrorism?

In truth, the federal government prosecuted Lynne Stewart because it wants to intimidate defense lawyers into either refusing to represent accused terrorists or into providing less than zealous representation. After she was convicted, Ms. Stewart said, "You can't lock up the lawyers, you can't tell the lawyers how to do their jobs."

by TChris

Lynne Stewart had some inspiring words for lawyers (and for the general public) following the government's outrageous prosecution and the jury's disappointing verdict. TalkLeft reported some of her comments here. The full transcript of her interview (and of the remarks of her lawyer, Michael Tigar) is available here. A brief excerpt from Stewart's comments:

I'm still very shook up and surprised and disappointed that the jury didn't see what we saw. But I think, as one my counsel put it, when you put Osama bin Laden in a courtroom and ask the jury to ignore it, that’s asking a lot. We are not giving up, obviously. We are going to fight on. This is the beginning of a longer struggle. I think everyone who has a sense that the United States needs to protect the Constitution at this time understands that struggle. And this case could be, I hope it will be, a wakeup call to all of the citizens of this country and all of the people who live here that you can't lock up the lawyers. You can't tell the lawyers how to do their job. You've got to let them operate. And I will fight on. I'm not giving up. I know I committed no crime. I know what I did was right.

(Italics added.) The interview also includes some pointed remarks from Ramsey Clark, including this:

It is clear that Lynne Stewart and the truth and the Constitution of the United States are all victims of 9/11 and of a repressive government that is taking advantage of the fear that they have helped create arising from that that is destroying freedom in this country.

The National Lawyers Guild has condemned the verdict in the Lynne Stewart trial and urges defense attorneys to continue representing unpopular clients:

New York. In response to today’s guilty verdict in the Lynne Stewart trial, the National Lawyers Guild condemns the message that the government is sending to defense lawyers who choose to represent
unpopular clients. After deliberating for 13 days, a jury convicted veteran civil rights attorney Stewart, a member of the Guild, on charges of conspiracy, providing material support to terrorists and defrauding the U.S. government. Sentencing is scheduled for July 15. The 65-year-old attorney faces up to 20 years in prison. The jury also convicted Ahmed Abdel Sattar and Arabic interpreter Mohammed Yousry.

Update (by TChris): After 13 days of deliberations, the jury found Lynne Stewart guilty of providing material support to terrorists. She will remain free until her sentencing on July 15, but she will not be allowed to leave New York.

Update (TL):

I completely disagree with this verdict. In fact, I'm shocked. And saddened.

More news is here, including this picture of her leaving court after the verdict with her husband.

I think she will get an appeal bond...clearly there are substantial issues of law and fact that would result in a reversal or new trial if decided in her favor. (That's the legal test for getting an appeal bond.)

Also, in light of Booker and FanFan, clearly this is a case calling for non-adherence to the guidelines. The Court can consider them and make a ruling they should not apply in this case.

She vowed to appeal and blamed the conviction on evidence that included videotape of Osama bin Laden urging support for her client. The defense protested the bin Laden evidence, and the judge warned jurors that the case did not involve the events of Sept. 11.

"When you put Osama bin Laden in a courtroom and ask the jury to ignore it, you're asking a lot," she said. "I know I committed no crime. I know what I did was right."

Lawyers have said Stewart most likely would face a sentence of about 20 years on charges that include conspiracy, providing material support to terrorists, defrauding the government and making false statements. She will remain free on bail but must stay in New York until her July 15 sentencing.

The jury in the terrorism trial of New York defense attorney Lynne Stewart is taking its time --they are in their third week of deliberations. Judging by their grim expressions, they are deeply divided.

Legal experts conclude the jury is deeply split. A hung jury may or may not be a win for Stewart. I think it depends on her lawyer, Michael Tigar. If he does not stay to do a re-trial, the Government might be more confident of a win the second time around, and decide to try her again. On the other hand, if Tigar hangs in, I think the Government will move on.

Chaos ruled today in the trial of defense lawyer Lynne Stewart when deliberating jurors reported "an incident" between their van driver and a Stewart supporter.

The incident, which some jurors said made them feel threatened, prompted defense lawyers to ask U.S. District Judge John Koeltl to declare a mistrial. Koeltl denied the request.

Their note to the Judge read:

"Judge Koeltl, we had an incident in the van on the way home yesterday," read a note from the jury foreman. "The Marshal was notified. ... Because we feel threatened, we would like to discuss this with you in person."

The federal judge presiding over the terror trial of accused Yemeni sheik Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad suffered a big blow Tuesday:

The ruling, which created palpable anxiety among the prosecutors, said the prosecutors cannot show jurors an application of a mujahedeen fighter for entry into an Al Qaeda training camp. The prosecutors said the application, found in Afghanistan in 2001, listed Sheik Moayad as the fighter's sponsor. The ruling also stopped prosecutors from introducing into evidence address books taken from two Muslim fighters in Bosnia in 1996. The prosecutors said the books included entries for Sheik Moayad.

Judge Johnson said that "we don't know what the source" of the Al Qaeda application was and that the address books were from a time too remote from the alleged fund-raising by the sheik in 2003. Judge Johnson said they dated back to before Al Qaeda was listed as a terrorist organization by the United States government.

Throughout his tenure as Attorney General, John Ashcroft made press conferences announcing the arrest of a major terror group connected to al Qaeda....only to have the case falter and sputter out by the time it was over. He got some pleas from some bumbling holy warriors, like those in Buffalo and Portland, in exchange for not sending them to Guantanamo or removing them from federal court and charging them as enemy combatants, but that's about it. And, he inflated the Department's statistics.

Now, on the eve of his departure, it happens once again. Step back to March, 2003.

Attorney General John Ashcroft personally announced to Congress that federal prosecutors had filed terrorism-financing charges against a Yemeni sheik and his aide. Law enforcement officials indicated that the sheik, Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad, had used a Brooklyn mosque to help funnel millions of dollars to Al Qaeda and had boasted that he had personally delivered $20 million to Osama bin Laden.

With jury selection underway, there is no longer any mention of Osama bin Laden or millions to al Qaeda. There is only that the defendant, a Yemeni Sheik, sent money to Hamas.

Michael Tigar has finished his two day closing argument in the Lynne Stewart trial. The prosecution began its rebuttal closing Tuesday and the jury should get the case Wednesday:

Michael Tigar, finished his closing argument on behalf of civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart by saying he feared Islamic or other fundamentalists were going to win -- but not through usual means. He said the authors of the Bill of Rights were "not cowards," and he portrayed his client as a hero for more than 30 years of work on behalf of people who were often destitute or despised.

"Suppose we got so worked up, so incited by the rhetoric of government, that we decided to punish people for their radical politics because their politics scared us or their religious doctrine appalled us," he said.

Tigar said such an attitude might cause people to "skip over reasonable doubt and do things based on suspicion," casting aside the presumption of innocence. "If all that happened, members of the jury, the fundamentalists would have won," he added. "They would have seen extinguished the light of this last hope of earth, which is not some particular country, but it is the very ideology of human rights." He said such a result would be cheered by Islamic fundamentalists.

What's really at stake in the Lynne Stewart case? Your constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. Your right to zealous representation by the counsel of your choice. Your right to speak to your attorney in confidence, without the Government listening in.

Defense Lawyer Michael Tigar began his closing argument yesterday in the trial of attorney Lynne Stewart, charged with providing material aid to terrorists by disseminating messages from her imprisoned client.

Attorney Michael Tigar suggested Wednesday in a closing argument that the prosecution of a "courageous, brash and feisty" Manhattan defense lawyer on terrorism charges was an insult to the nation's other defense lawyers. "The government of the United States has the arrogance to tell the defense bar how to practice law," Tigar told a federal jury as he underscored a threat felt by defense lawyers that had received little mention in the 6-month-old trial.

by TChris

Federal prosecutors love to bring Patriot Act prosecutions, even when they can't find appropriate targets for the law's anti-terrorism provisions. Hence the decision to charge David Banach, who the Justice Department admits is not a terrorist.

Banach was charged with "interfering with a flight crew" by shining a laser at a charter jet flying over his home. Banach's lawyer says that Banach was playing with his daughter in the back yard, using the laser to point at trees and stars.

Banach's attorney blasted federal officials for what she called an overreaction. "One would think they would want to devote their time and resources to prosecuting real terrorists, not people like my client," Gina Mendola-Longarzo told the Associated Press.

The Justice Department -- noting recent but unrelated reports of lasers shining on airplanes -- says it wants to "send a message." The message it is sending: we have nothing better to do. Assuming there's evidence that Banach acted intentionally, his crime was disorderly conduct. Treating him as if he's a terrorist, when he admittedly isn't, demonstrates bad judgment in the extreme.