home

Another Terrorism-Related Acquittal

By TChris, Section Terror Trials
Posted on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 03:52:18 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A trial that was billed "as a major component in [the government's] war on terrorism" has, predictably enough, ended with an acquittal on the most serious charge.

[Muhammad] Salah, 53, and Abdelhaleem Ashqar, 48, a one-time assistant business professor at Howard University in Washington, had been accused of laundering money for Hamas terrorists fighting to topple the Israeli government.

A jury found both men not guilty of racketeering. Both were convicted of the significantly less serious crime of obstructing justice, and Ashqar was convicted of criminal contempt for refusing to testify before a grand jury.

"This is a great day for justice," said defense attorney Michael E. Deutsch, who represented former grocer Muhammad Salah.

< Why The Coming Fight On Iraq Starts Now | On Iraq and Dems: Deja Vu All Over Again >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Another Terrorism-Related Acquittal | 13 comments (13 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    "lesser charges" (none / 0) (#1)
    by diogenes on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:01:53 PM EST
    These "lesser charges" are more serious than the Scooter Libby "perjury" charge when he wasn't even given immunity.
    Also, the men were found "not guilty", which doesn't mean innocent.  It could mean "not proven", as is allowed in Scottish law but not here.
    It's standard DA practice to indict on a string of charges and settle for a less serious one.  As other posters have often told me, it's all about nabbing Al Capone for tax evasion.  

    so... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 07:10:34 AM EST
    ... are you suggesting that high-ranking administration officials should be given a pass so long as their offenses are "less serious" than those of persons suspecting of aiding terrorists?

      I agree it's a gross  distortion to call this an "acquittal" and imply it was a case that should not have been prosecuted because it was an example of government overreaching. On the other hand, if people willfully obstruct lawful investigations they should be held accountable even if they are powerful politicians.

      Just as in this case, the failure to obtain a conviction on a more serious charge does not absolve the defendants of responsibility for "lesser" crimes, the same applies to the Fitzgeral investigation into the leaks.

    Parent

    "Lesser Charges" (none / 0) (#2)
    by atlanta lawyer on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 04:44:47 PM EST
    more serious than perjury?  Morally? legally? I don't understand.  Refusing to testify to the grand jury is more serious than lying to one?  I don't know federal criminal law very well, I could use an explanation.

    Seems like the point of the post is that it is yet another failure on the part of this administration to achieve a conviction on substantive terrorism charges.  Further, the government has refused to let any real facts about the allegations against hundreds of detainees see the light of day, and time after time, when  "terrorism" allegations do see the light of day, they are insufficient to convince twelve citizens beyond a reasonable doubt.  

    diogenes (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 01, 2007 at 10:44:26 PM EST
    unfortunately, a jury only has two choices: guilty or not guilty, there is no "innocent". presumptively, that the govt was unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, a person's guilt, means they're innocent, of that particular crime.

    in this case, it's "standard DA practice" to make a lot of public noise, throw all kinds of allegations into the pot, and see if anything sticks. you don't get a lot of press coverage for charging someone with contempt, you do for charging someone with terrorism.

    really, that's what this is all about, publicity, not justice or protecting the american public.

    Seeing if it sticks (none / 0) (#6)
    by atlanta lawyer on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:11:24 AM EST
    My experience as an attorney is that the "throwing it all in the pot" doesn't end at the courtroom door.If a prosecutor has, say, a weak murder case, he jumps up and down, screams and hollers about how definitively, irrevocably, tragically dead the victim, is, which isn't helpful in any logical way in a "who dunnit" case, but it encourages the jury act on emotions.  And often, it works.  I know the Lawyers Guild did a survey which showed that a majority of those who serve on jury duty will convict a defendant unless he proves his innoncence no matter how many times the judge explains the presumption of innocence and "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Prosecutors have an ethical duty to be another checkpoint in the road to conviction.  They frequently fail to exercise that duty, and use the exuse that "we need to let a jury decide."  However, they are advocates, and advocate for conviction, not "whatever you the jury decide is warranted by the facts."
     I'm sure those that practice in federal courts can attest to the overwhelming resouces that are available to federal prosecutors, (and federal agencies). Given all those resources, they were unable to convince a jury of one unrefutable act.  The man was given immunity and still refused to testify.  They couldn't find one witness in all the secret prisons in the world they could torture in testifying against him so we could know what he was hiding?  My suspicion: nothing.  The man refused to testify on some principle, that I'm not sure I understand.

    atlanta lawyer (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:13:45 AM EST
    You write:

    The man was given immunity and still refused to testify.  They couldn't find one witness in all the secret prisons in the world they could torture in testifying against him so we could know what he was hiding?  My suspicion: nothing. The man refused to testify on some principle, that I'm not sure I understand.

    Perhaps the principle is fear.

    Also charged in the case is Abu Mousa Marzook, described as one of the top leaders of Hamas. Prosecutors said it was Marzook who sent Salah on his mission to Israel and supplied him with money to give to Hamas leaders.

    FBI agents also intercepted phone calls between Ashqar and Marzook.

    Marzook is currently living in Damascus, Syria, and is classified by the government as a fugitive.



    Parent
    atlanta lawyer (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:57:36 AM EST
    i'm not so certain i agree. prosecutor's are the state's legal representative. as such, they are ethically bound to vigorously advocate for their client, just as every other attorney is ethically bound to do the same. it is not now, nor has it ever been, their job to search for evidence of innocence, ethically or otherwise.

    should they stumble on potentially exculpatory evidence, they're legally and ethically required to turn it over to the defense. that, as i understand it, is all they're mandated to do. clearly, if the evidence exonerates the accused, the charges should be dropped, it wouldn't be cost effective to continue.

    all that said, i don't agree that part of their job is to be a "checkpoint on the road to conviction". perhaps it should be, but at present, it isn't. since they're graded by their conviction rate, i doubt that's going to happen.

    the duke rape case is probably the best illustration of this concept, gone totally berserk.

    That's ot true (none / 0) (#13)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:14:37 AM EST
      The "special" role of a Prosector is recognized int RPC. A prosecutor's obligation to zealously advocate for the government is tempered by the parallel duty to uphold the interests of justice.

    Parent
    prosecutorial ethics (none / 0) (#8)
    by atlanta lawyer on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:41:45 AM EST
    ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Prosecution Function Standard: 1.2 The Function of the Prosecutor:

     (c) The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.

    While a lawyer has a duty to advocate for the interests of their clients, a prosecutor has an almost unique role (the only other I can think of is a child advocate attorney) in that he decides what is best for his/her client (the state) and advocates for it.  Other attorneys must seek the goals of their clients, not decide those goals.  Prosecutors, however, have an ethical duty, as ministers of justice, to not only prosecute the guilty, but to dismiss charges for which there is no, or very insufficient evidence.

    What were the sentences?? (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 05:32:21 PM EST
    Thanks

    Trial First, Sentence Afterwards (none / 0) (#10)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 10:18:51 PM EST
    Federal criminal procedure does not honor the Red Queen.  This news report is of the jury's verdicts.  The process in federal court of gathering information about the defendants for sentencing, on the counts for which they were convicted of course, takes between two and three months.  Bail during that time is possible but not likely. Not nearly enough information is provided in the story to predict the probable sentences.  

    Parent
    Peter G (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:05:18 AM EST
    Thanks - For some reson I was thinking all of that was done.

    Parent
    Background here (none / 0) (#14)
    by The Heretik on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:13:40 PM EST
    Not With a Bang but a Whimper

    Another Terrorism-Related Acquittal | 13 comments (13 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment