Posted on 03/15/2006 2:57:59 PM PST by NormsRevenge
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - Prosecutors acknowledge their only hope of salvaging the death-penalty case against confessed terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui is to reverse a judge's ruling barring key witnesses from testifying. But the government's avenues of appeal may be limited.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Rob Spencer told U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema it would be a waste of time for the government to proceed if her ruling, which tossed out half of the government's case, is allowed to stand.
"We don't know whether it is worth us proceeding at all, candidly, under the ruling you made today," Spencer said in an unusually blunt assessment of the government's prospects during a conference call Tuesday. Transcripts of the call were made public Wednesday. "Because without some relief, frankly, I think that there's no point for us to go forward."
Spencer went on to say that resuming the trial under the current conditions would "waste the jury's time and the court's time, and we're all mindful of the expense of this proceeding. ... We ought just to weigh our rights for reconsideration or our appellate rights."
It's not clear, though, what appeal avenues are open to the government. Defense attorney Edward MacMahon said during the call that the government can't appeal Brinkema's ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond now that the trial is under way
"We don't think the government has any appellate rights under" federal law, MacMahon said during the call.
But there appears to be no dispute that prosecutors can ask Brinkema to reconsider her order. And she told them her schedule would permit that on Thursday.
The government's case is teetering following the disclosure that a federal lawyer, Carla Martin, violated trial rules by coaching witnesses on their testimony, sending them trial transcripts that she urged them to read, and warning them to be prepared for certain topics on cross-examination.
She also misrepresented to defense lawyers that witnesses they wanted to call weren't willing to talk with them before trial.
Federal rules of evidence prohibit witnesses from exposure to trial testimony because of the possibility they will alter their testimony based on what they learn.
Moussaoui is the only person charged in this country with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. He pleaded guilty in April to conspiring with al-Qaida to hijack aircraft and other crimes, but he denies any involvement in 9/11, saying he was training for a possible future attack.
The sentencing trial that began last week will determine Moussaoui's punishment: death or life in prison. Brinkema delayed the trial until Monday while prosecutors consider an appeal.
The three government witnesses struck from the case were all current or former employees of the Federal Aviation Administration. They were expected to testify that they would have issued alerts and implemented security measures at airports if Moussaoui had revealed his al-Qaida membership and the true intent of his flight training when he was arrested and interrogated by federal agents in August 2001. Moussaoui lied to federal agents after his arrest and led them on what one FBI agent called "wild goose chases."
The aviation witnesses are key because, to obtain the death penalty, the government must prove that Moussaoui's actions directly resulted in at least one death on Sept. 11.
Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said that on its face, the federal statute governing prosecutorial appeals does not allow the government to appeal midtrial because it would violate a defendant's constitutional protections against being tried twice for the same crime.
But he said the issue is not clear cut. As a practical matter, he thought prosecutors might have more luck asking Brinkema to reconsider her ruling rather than appealing to the 4th Circuit, which could prompt another long delay of a trial that has been more than four years in the making.
But Eric Holder, a former deputy attorney general, thought the appellate court in Richmond could act swiftly in a case of this significance.
"Given ... what is at stake both in terms of defendant's life and what this trial means to this nation, I think an appellate court could and should move a lot faster than they are used to," Holder said in a telephone interview Wednesday.
He expected prosecutors would exhaust all options in pursuing the case.
"Agree or disagree with the decision to seek death, once you have committed to that course of action, you have to do all that you can to obtain that ultimate punishment," he said.
Prosecutors successfully overturned an unfavorable ruling from Brinkema in 2004. The 4th Circuit overruled her decision to exclude the death penalty then as a sanction for the government's refusal to allow defense access to key al-Qaida witnesses in U.S. custody.
___
On the Net:
Court's Moussaoui site: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/index.html
In this artist's rendering, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema listens to testimony from attorney Carla Martin, regarding the coaching of witnesses, as Zacarius Moussaoui sits in federal court in Alexandria, Va., Tuesday, March 14, 2006. (AP Photo/Dana Verkouteren)
What do terrorists have to fear these days anyway?
If caught, they will likely get off or get away with their deeds regardless.
We are our own victims of our own government and judicial system, a system more intent on protecting the "rights" of the accused than of the citizens of this nation.
You have to wonder why in the world an attorney, who should know the procedures, would do such a stupid thing in such a high-profile case. This is exactly why you don't try such terrorists: you ship them to Gitmo and have them "disappear."
Speak, tagline, speak!
Goooooood tagline. Sit. Stay.
Is she an Ivy League School?
It's not like he is getting a "get out of jail free" card. He gets life without parole. This mistake affects the penalty phase only. Besides, in the interest of making lemonade out of lemons, I'm betting someone inside saves us the trouble of killing him.
A stupid, stupid blunder, yes. But one WE can live with.
WHO.IS.THIS.CARLA.MARTIN???
seriously, she did something very, VERY stupid.
I would like to know who appointed/hired her, what her political affiliations are, what her bank account activity has been for the last four years, etc...
I agree--and certainly think the man should be executed, based upon what I know, or think I know; however, let's not forget Ms. Martin, who should be treated with tar and feathers. Can't she win a case on the merits?
More importantly, why does Carla Martin still have a job in the U.S. Justice Department?
"Government: Moussaoui Case May Be Lost"
I think the government has done a great job. They got a crazy terrorist to plead guilty to a terror act he was not part of. And life imprisonment.
I was talking to a friend at lunch--he wonders if someone paid this "lawyer" off to do this. In his mind, it seems too far-fetched for a real "lawyer" to be that stupid.
he won't be leading any parades.......
---
That is true, but this whole affair has made a laughing stock of the judicial process, imo. There is plenty of blame to go around for this latest twist.
He would have killed untold numbers had he had opportunity and some will say, It's good that he didn't, at least he won't get another chance.
Remember tho that he was part of a conspiracy that did kill thousands. He deserves the same fate as his fellow terrorists, Death, not life in a cell.
Trust me, attorneys can be morons. They just like to rephrase it so that they say that they are morons.
It worked with Jack Ruby.
(It's scary the information that can be found on LexisNexis.)
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.