Posted on 03/13/2006 10:30:42 AM PST by Wolfstar
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - An angry federal judge considered Monday whether to dismiss the government's death penalty case against confessed al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui after a federal attorney coached witnesses in violation of her rules.
"I do not want to act precipitously," U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said in scheduling a special hearing on the case Tuesday, but she said that it was "very difficult for this case to go forward."
Brinkema said a lawyer for the Transportation Security Administration sent e-mail to seven Federal Aviation Administration officials outlining the prosecution's opening statements and providing commentary on government witnesses from the first day of testimony. That was in violation of her pretrial order barring witnesses from exposure to any opening statements or trial testimony.
"An attorney for the TSA ... egregiously breached that order," she told jurors before excusing them until Wednesday. Of the seven, three were to testify for the government and four were potential defense witnesses.
Government officials identified the attorney as Carla Martin.
Brinkema wanted to hear Tuesday from the seven and from the attorney who contacted them to help her decide whether to throw out the government's case. If she does, Moussaoui would escape the possibility of execution and be sentenced to life in prison without chance of parole.
She said the rule against witnesses hearing testimony in advance is "a very important protection of the truth-seeking process."
Moussaoui appeared bemused as the lawyers debated how to proceed. Leaving the courtroom, he said, "The show must go on."
The stunning development came at the opening of the fifth day of the trial after the government informed the judge and the defense over the weekend of the attorney's contact.
"This is the second significant error by the government affecting the constitutional rights of this defendant and more importantly the integrity of the criminal justice system of the United States in the context of a death case," Brinkema told lawyers outside the presence of the jury.
Defense attorney Edward MacMahon moved to have the judge dismiss the death penalty as a possible outcome, saying "this is not going to be a fair trial." In the alternative, he said, at least she should excuse the government's FAA witnesses from the case.
Prosecutor David Novak replied that removing the FAA witnesses would "exclude half the government's case." Novak suggested instead that the problem could be fixed by a vigorous cross-examination by the defense.
But Brinkema said she would need time to study what to do.
"In all the years I've been on the bench, I have never seen such an egregious violation of a rule on witnesses," she said.
Grrrrrr...just makes me want to scream. What a waste.
I wondered that myself . What prevents a lawyer from tainting a case on purpose to save the defendant ?
The lawyer who screwed up is not from Justice, but from TSA.
It's not Clinton's fault, but neither is it Bush's fault. In fact, the only person at fault here is the attorney in question.
______________
mea culpa (for the error of subsituting justice dept for tsa).
Of course, my point being that the attempt to pin responsibility on Clinton is as ridiculous as trying to pin responsibility on Bush is unchanged. If you read my comment as a "it's Bush's fault", you misread. It is obviously only the fault of the actual perpetrator.
Not ever being trusted again to handle a case is one thing, because for it to work you would have to be caught.
How do you do that? The lawyer's conduct was geared towards muddling the decision over whether to execute or not. I agree that in an ideal world the lawyer's conduct should have no bearing upon this, but in reality lawyers are not always totally professional in their conduct and rules are made to discourage their treachery. In this case, the lawyer got caught and it may be the duty of the judge to throw out the case.
Without safeguards against corruption on the part of prosecutors, the ability of the innocent to defend themselves is significantly weakened. Should I ever find myself wrongly accused of a crime, I want all of the protections that I can get - even if it means that that terrorist murderers serve life in prison instead of getting the chair.
In any case, when the rules are established in advance, it's tough to fault anyone other than the participants when the system produces undesireable results.
Good point. It would be nice of the lawmakers responded to this by putting punishments on par with the effect of the crime.
Interesting thought.
Perhaps they figure it's safer to let him off than win and have to reveal sources and tactics.
Good point.
She has numerous options to deal with the problem without tossing the case. But who appointed her gives people an idea of her ideological background, and why she might overreact, let politics influence her actions, or make a stupid decision based on utopian foolishness. We'll see what she actually does.
You do that by getting a new jury, letting it decide the perp's fate after a new penalty trial, and by punishing the lawyer separately. I repeat--a criminal trial should be about the facts of the case.
Any illegally obtained evidence or prosecutorial misconduct happens AFTER the crime. If the accused did the crime and the facts prove it, then he needs to be found guilty. Any other outcome is unjust.
Does this mean that some of the tainted witnesses have already testified? If not, shouldn't they just be excluded? What exactly is a "vigorous cross-examination"?
Government officials identified the attorney as Carla Martin
Hope this moron is out of a job by now.
WTF?!? A first-year law student knows that he'll get his @$$ handed to him if he gets caught doing that, and the Feds did it in a high-profile terrorism trial?
Our security is in the hands of a bunch of Keystone Kops.
Irrelevant. Military tribunals don't allow witness tampering.
"This is the second significant error by the government affecting the constitutional rights of this defendant" ....I understood the defendent was NOT a US citizen and consequently has NO "constitutional rights" .....am I wrong here ? !
I think the prohibition against double jeopardy applies in death penalty sentencing trials.
I do not think that double jeopardy applies when the death penalty portion of the trial has not yet taken place.
Most rights delineated in amendments I-X apply to "persons", not "citizens", as in "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other offense....", so, yes, you're wrong.
I just wanted say that I appreciated your comments as it pertained to the Moussaoui trial, they were quite helpful and insightful.
But the trial has already been taking place in this case. The jury's been seated, and arguments and testimony have begun. *If* the prohibition against double jeopardy applies, jeopardy would be attached already. That's how it works in a guilt trial at least.
thanks..so American law can be used to the benefit of a non-citizen...and in consequence to the detriment of the citizenry?.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.