Posted on 08/22/2006 1:03:59 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
The U.S. government's terrorism case against former 'enemy combatant' Jose Padilla and two other Muslim codefendants suffered a major setback in federal court in Miami. BY JAY WEAVER jweaver@MiamiHerald.com
When Jose Padilla was charged in a South Florida terror-cell indictment in November, U.S. authorities boasted their case was rock solid.
But in a stunning decision, a federal judge in Miami has lopped a big chunk off of the indictment, saying the government wrongly overcharged the notorious former ''enemy combatant'' and two other Muslim men.
In a written order released Monday, U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke threw out the first count of the indictment -- that Padilla and the others ''conspired to murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country . . . to advance violent jihad'' abroad -- saying it repeated charges from two other counts.
The ruling also could wipe out possible life sentences if Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi are convicted at trial, scheduled for late January.
''There can be no question that the government has charged a single conspiracy offense multiple times, in separate counts, when in law and in fact only one [alleged] crime has been committed,'' Cooke wrote in an eight-page ruling.
''The danger'' in the indictment, she wrote, is that it violates the double-jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the prosecution or punishment of a defendant twice for the same offense.
The dismissal of a first count in an indictment is unusual, but does not mean the government's case can't be won on the remaining terror-conspiracy charge. Prosecutors and defense lawyers routinely spar over charges before trial, striving to gain a tactical edge before presenting their cases to a jury.
Sorry, forgot to indicate that this is an excerpt.
Here come the howling nutters to attack the judge without even bothering to read the decision. INCOMING!!!!
--R.
The headline is misleading. Multiple repetitions of the same offense were tossed.
Before anyone asks:
Cooke, Marcia G.
Born 1954 in Sumter, SC
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
Nominated by George W. Bush on November 25, 2003, to a seat vacated by Wilkie D. Ferguson; Confirmed by the Senate on May 18, 2004, and received commission on May 18, 2004.
U.S. Magistrate (Judge), U.S. District for the Eastern District of Michigan, 1984-1992
Education:
Georgetown University, B.S.F.S., 1975
Wayne State University Law School, J.D., 1977
Professional Career:
Staff attorney, Neighborhood Legal Services, Michigan, 1978-1979
Deputy public defender, Legal Aid and Defender Association, Michigan, 1979-1980
Assistant U.S. attorney, Eastern District of Michigan, 1980-1983
Private practice, Michigan, 1983-1984
Director of professional development and training, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida, 1992, 1994-1999
Executive assistant U.S. attorney, Southern District of Florida, 1992-1994
Chief inspector general, Executive Office of the Governor, Florida, 1999-2002
Assistant county attorney, Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2002-2004
Race or Ethnicity: African American
Gender: Female
No, I'm going to attack the reporter for this overblown hype. Throwing out one count of a multiple count indictment is no big deal. Especially when the reason for throwing it out is that the same charges are made in the remaining counts.
Are our gov't prosecutors so idiotic and puerile that they don't review these cases ahead of time with others, to see if there are any 'problems' before going to court?
Hey, you know it's no big deal, I know it's no big deal, but tell me you haven't seen the people on other threads about assorted court cases flying off the handle here...
--R.
Your precaution is well-advised.
Freepers flying off the handle? Surely you jest. Just look at post #7 on this thread, and you'll see how well-reasoned and rational Freepers are. LOL!
Seriously though, I find it interesting that the reporter strained to make this seem like some huge blow to the government's case when it really does not amount to much. One would almost think these 'journalists' have an agenda to make the administration look inept when it comes to catching and prosecuting terrorists.
journalists with an agenda?
surely you jest!
I don't know...that dan rather deal sort of got me to thinking.....
This seems to have become the norm at every level of the judiciary over the past decade or so. I was on a jury a couple of years ago for a guy charged with robbery, some other level of robbery, burglary, some other level of burglary, larceny, and about three other charges. They all amounted to seven ways, some contradicting each other as a matter of law, of describing a single act of breaking a window and stealing a TV.
"I don't know...that dan rather deal sort of got me to thinking....."
Don't do that too much though.
You'll end up with a migraine!
AUUUGH THIS JUDGE IS INSANE! WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN! WE ARE AT WAR!!!!
AUUUGH THIS JUDGE IS CORRECT! WHEN WILL THE GOVERNMENT EVER LEARN! WE CANNOT LOSE OUR RIGHTS!!!!
Oh c'mon!!! Where the hell did you ever GET such an idea?
Well, you've gotta understand.
It was a really nice TV.
"AUUUGH THIS JUDGE IS INSANE! WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN! WE ARE AT WAR!!!!"
"AUUUGH THIS JUDGE IS CORRECT! WHEN WILL THE GOVERNMENT EVER LEARN! WE CANNOT LOSE OUR RIGHTS!!!!"
Can anyone say Multiple Personality Disorder?;)
Ya know, I rather liked the inclusion of the reporters email address. I'm able to express my personal opinion of his journalistic integrity (or lack there of) through the magic of the internet. If he responds I'll gladly post it here.
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.