Posted on 07/15/2002 7:46:47 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
ALEXANDRIA, Va., Jul 15, 2002 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- John Walker Lindh, the American captured in Afghanistan, has decided to plead guilty to charges he aided the Taliban and al-Qaida, his lawyer told a court Monday.
"There is a change in plea," defense attorney James Brosnahan told U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III.
Brosnahan told the court a deal was completed late Sunday night, on the eve of a hearing that was going to determine whether statements Lindh made to interrogators after his capture would be admissible in court.
Brosnahan did not immediately detail the specific pleas to each count or the terms of the deal, and the judge was explaining the consequences of a guilty plea to Lindh before any pleas were accepted.
The charges against Lindh, for which a trial had been set to begin on Aug. 26, include conspiracy to murder U.S. citizens, contributing services to al- Qaida and the Taliban and using firearms during crimes of violence.
Three of the 10 counts carry maximum terms of life imprisonment for Lindh, who was captured in early December and transferred to civilian custody in late January.
The plea decision even surprised the judge, who had opened the hearing by discussing procedures for protecting the identity of confidential witnesses in the proceedings planned for this week.
Ellis stopped when the defense attorney announced the plea change.
Lindh's parents, who are divorced, were in the courtroom for the announcement. Lindh sat at the defense table in his green prison jumpsuit and made no expressions as his lawyer made the announcement.
Lindh, a young man from a middle-class family in Marim County, California, broke onto the American scene in December when he was discovered among Taliban prisoners captured in Afghanistan.
With long hair and a beard, he gave a hpspital bed interview to a freelance reporter for CNN explaining describing his allegiance to the Taliban.
In military interrogations, he also claimed to have met Osama bin Laden once, government lawyers claim.
It was those statements that his lawyers were seeking this week to keep out of the trial before the deal was reached.
While Lindh's team had disputed government accounts of his statements, prosecutors contended that he described enlisting in the Taliban; training at a camp the government says was run by al- Qaida; meeting with bin Laden in Afghanistan in the summer of 2001; and learning from others at the camp that the al-Qaida leader had sent operatives to carry out suicide missions against the United States and Israel.
In advance of Monday's announcement, Lindh's lawyers had been plotting a strategy aimed at challenging the use in court of statements he made while still in Afghanistan. They had contended that the failure to tell him of his right to remain silent and have an attorney present violated his rights. They also had said that Lindh was malnourished, deprived of sleep, bound and blindfolded, conditions that should invalidate anything he said.
Prosecutors responded that the Miranda rule spelling out a defendant's rights has no place on the battlefield. They argued Lindh was treated as well as U.S. soldiers in the field.
By LARRY MARGASAK Associated Press Writer
If we had caught Americans fighting with the enemy in Vietnam, I doubt that he would have left the country alive.
I seriously doubt Johnny knows anything of any value -- except perhaps who specifically in this country recruited him. Even that may not be acted upon, given the FBI "sensitivity" to Muslims.
This case was apparently over-hyped by the DOJ. 20 years (at the most) is a joke, and IMO, should encourage other American jihadists to carry on.
Fox reporter said Walker gave his family a big smile in court today.
I wonder what the wife and child of the CIA man Johnny helped kill thinks about this? Johnny's probably eligible for parole in two weeks! Traitor should have gotten the needle, I am disgusted with DOJ.
Under the law the prosecution has to present its entire case to the defense well before trial. That is the only way a defendant can refute what the state has as evidence. This is important for people who are not quilty. If a defendant is truly not guilty, someone or something must have convinced the prosecuters that the defendant did the crime. A defendant can not refute trumped up evidence, he does not know about until it is presented in court.
What happens when a defense attorney sees the full case against his client is very revealing. If council determines there is zero chance of a not quilty verdict, he will next try to plea bargain for his client.
To do that he goes to the prosecuter. If they work out a deal they both go to the judge for approval. Since plea bargains contain an agreement on punishment they have to get the judge to sign off on punishment. If the judge refuses there is no plea bargain.
In this case the prosecuter must have said no plea bargain. So they never went to the judge. That is why the judge had obviously done the work of writing up rules on admission of some evidence. That is why the judge was surprised.
That means the defendant was told by the prosecutor... there will be no plea bargain. The defense council must have told Lindh it is ceratin the jury will give you maximum sentence. A judge may give you less if all the evidence does not become public. That is your best chance. But this is a gamble with no idea of what the judge may do.
There is nothing to indicate that this judge will not throw the book at Lindh. It is illegal for an attorney to go to the Judge and say what will you give my client if he pleads guilty. That is not allowed. It certainly would not be done by a judge in this case. Any attorney dumb enough to try it would be disbarred. If a judge did it and it leaked the judge would be disbarred as well.
This is pure and simple a case of ....there is no hope. Lindh was clearly told his only chance was to throw himself on the mercy of the court.
I would dearly love to see the full case against Lindh. But there is nothing the prosecuter can do when the accused pleads guilty. There will be no trial.
What could have happened at a trial?
The jury could have found him guilty as charged on all counts or quilty on some and not guilty on others or innocent on all.
The best that could happen if it went to trial is for the jury to find Lindh guilty as charged.
Could a jury have found hime more guilty as charged than his admission that he is guilty as charged?
The only way a prosecuter could to be certain that this went to trial was to charge him with something he was not guilty of or make such a weak case the defense thought they could beat it. Then the jury could have found him innocent on some charges and guilty on others or innocent on all. Imagine what the media would have made of Johnny being found innocent on some charges.
Only a blithering idiot could imagine there is a better prosecuter performance than the defendant, after seeing the case against him, entering a plea of guilty as charged.
The perfect prosecution is when it causes the defendant to plead guilty as charged.
He could have been sentenced to death. I know the case was complicated, but why didn't the DOJ go for treason, which has the death penalty? He's a young guy -- why not 30 years, which is still better than life? I will be less upset if it's 20 years without a day of parole, but since all the reports I have seen so far don't say anything about parole, I have to assume he is eligible.
Let me ask you: would you want to go to the wife of that CIA man who was killed (I'm blanking on his name) and say "Well, we know he helped the guys who killed you husband, but he'll be out in ten years with good behavior"? I have a brother who served on the USS Peleliu up through February of this year -- forgive me for being emotional, but I want the guy fried.
President Hillary could even commute his sentence as she leaves office.
From the beginning, I've simply not been interesting in lopping his head off. He's very youg, grew up in a wacked liberal household. Who knows, if the brainwashing can be reversed maybe he'll turn out to be a Super Patriot.
I see no reason to scotch his entire life for an action that really did not materially damage the U.S.
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.