[The prosecutor] indicated that the discussions the attorney had with FAA witnesses concerned whether the government could have stopped Sept. 11, through heightened airport security, if Moussaoui had confessed his knowledge of the plot when he was arrested in August 2001. Prosecutors are arguing that Moussaoui should be executed because he lied to and misled the FBI.
That is the most important issue in the case. If unable to prove that theory to the jury, the death penalty would fail.
The Judge said it was the "most egregious" violation she could remember in all her years as a judge. Plus, it wasn't the first violation. On Thursday,
....prosecutors questioned why Moussaoui had not contacted the FBI to offer information after he was jailed in Minnesota in August 2001. At the time, Moussaoui had stopped speaking with agents and had asked for an attorney, and defense lawyers said the prosecution's question violated Moussaoui's constitutional rights against incriminating itself.
Brinkema warned the government on Thursday that it was "treading on very delicate legal ground."
I think the judge will declare a mistrial. I don't see that she has any choice.
That doesn't mean Moussaoui goes free. His guilty plea still can and likely will result in a life sentence. The question is whether the Government will appeal the dismissal and keep this charade going.
Update: Let's not forget former AG John Ashcroft's role in this.
Update: One non-lawyer commenter questions whether the violation is significant. The answer, in a nutshell, on the importance of the sequestration of witnesses:
The rule is designed to discourage and expose fabrication, inaccuracy, and collusion. Fed. R.Evid. 615 advisory committee's note; see also United States v.Leggett , 326 F.2d 613, 613 (4th Cir.) (noting that witness sequestration "prevent[s] the possibility of one witness shaping his testimony to match that given by other witnesses at the trial"), cert. denied , 377 U.S. 955 (1964).
The merit of such a rule has been recognized since at least biblical times. The Apocrypha , vv. 36-64, relates how Daniel vindicated Susanna of adultery by sequestering the two elders who had accused her and asking each of them under which tree her alleged adulterous act took place. When they gave different answers, they were convicted of falsely testifying. See 6 John H. Wigmore, Wigmore on Evidence § 1837, at 455-56 (James H. Chadbourn ed., 1976).
It is now well recognized that sequestering witnesses "is (next to cross-examination) one of the greatest engines that the skill of man has ever invented for the detection of liars in a court of justice." Id . § 1838, at 463.