Moussaoui lost his bid today to have his trial moved to Denver. The Judge ruled he hadn't proved that jurors elsewhere would be more impartial than Virginia jurors. What about the fact that jurors in Virginia are likely to have a more personal interest in the case and a greater stake in the outcome by virtue of the crime occurring in their community?

As Judge Matsch stated in moving the Oklahoma bombing trials from Oklahoma to Denver, our trust in the jurors' ability to put aside prejudicial pre-trial publicity "diminishes when the prior exposure is such that it evokes strong emotional responses or such an identification with those directly affected by the conduct at issue that the jurors feel a personal stake in the outcome. That is also true when there is such identification with a community point of view that jurors feel a sense of obligation to reach a result which will find general acceptance in the relevant audience...."

"Because the penalty of death is by its very nature different from all other punishments in that it is final and irrevocable, the issue of prejudice...must include consideration of whether there is a showing of a predilection toward that penalty. "

Was Moussaoui provided with experts to advise the court on these issues at a hearing? Were studies done comparing the attitudes of Virginia juries with those of other cities? We haven't read about it.

Here is what we know so far.

Moussaoui will be tried in the same community where the crime occurred and which is home to the victims and their families. Many members of the prospective jury pool are employees of the federal Government, the target of the attacks. (Does this make them victims too?)

Moussaoui can't have the advice of his counsel of choice because that lawyer is not licensed in Virginia and doesn't want to enter his appearance for the whole case. (What difference does it make if the lawyer is not intending on appearing in Court but only on providing advice to enable Moussaoui to better represent himself?) He won't be provided with the names and addresses of witnesses who will testify against him because it might be dangerous to the witnesses. He can't have access to all the documents because many are classified. He is representing himself even though he doesn't know the difference between a plea of nolo contendre and guilty (they are in effect the same). He won't even speak with his court-appointed stand-by counsel.

A truly unfortunate thing is that Moussaoui, according to many legal experts, actually may have a valid legal defense to the charges. According to Jonathan Turley on NPR on June 13, 2002, the Government's claims are mostly circumstantial and many of its legal theories are "highly questionable." Turley thinks that with a good lawyer, Moussaoui might have a chance, even in Virginia.

So how does Moussaoui fairly and adequately present his defense in Alexandria, Virginia without a lawyer arguing on his behalf? And how will his trial make our criminal justice system appear to the rest of the world?

We think the answers are painfully obvious. Surely there must be a better way.