Judge Unexpectedly Halts Moussaoui Trial (May dismiss the case)

AP via Yahoo News ^ | 3/13/06 | Michael J. Sniffen, AP writer

[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.

[beezdotcom]

Life in prison is the alternative.

I still think that's a worse punishment for an avowed jihadist.

[eleni121]

Of course, a military court. This foolishness has made us the laughing stock of the enemy.

[Chena]

Carla Martin, YOU'RE FIRED!!

[Vortex]

in violation of her rules.

WTF does that mean?

Call me crazy, but I would've thought the "rules" would be the laws on the books in this regard. Then again, I didn't go to law school, so what do I know...

[Malesherbes]

This trial has been handled just like the Milosevic trial, endless pettifogging by an inept judge. The only difference is that his jailers were meddling with Milosevic's medications.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[Williams]

Yes, a party has every right to exclude a witness from the courtroom when they are not testifying. For the obvious reason to prevent them from "getting their stories straight" by listening to others, rather than testifying about only what they know. In this case, the witnesses were given the government's opening statement and other trial information that would list exactly what the witnesses are expected to say.

It is a bit of a technicality, because the government lawyers meet with the witnesses and discuss the testimony in advance. But still witnesses on the stand often do not say what is expected, and there are rules to keep them from being "coached." It only seems uneccessary when you aren't the defendant.

[Jim Noble]

Once again:

This trial is a farce and a perversion of both our Constitution and our civil laws.

ZM is not guilty of any crimes, certainly not of any capital offenses.

What he is, is an enemy soldier, caught behind our lines and out of uniform. As such, he does not fall under the purview of the various Geneva Conventions.

Dealing with him is not the job of the Justice Department, nor is it the job of the Judicial Branch.

He should be killed by our armed forces, either summarily or after a tribunal hearing (not a trial).

He should have been put up against a wall on Rector Street in lower Manhattan and shot at sunrise on 9/12/01.

Everything that has happened to him since then is a sign of craven weakness and terminal stupidity.

[Williams]

The judge's rules are the rules of the court, the government violated the court's rules. "Her" rule was based on legal principles which govern the case, she did not make them up.

[Iwo Jima]

This rule is so important that it is simply called "The Rule." Everyone knows what rule is being discussed.

In civil cases, a lawyer simply says "I'd like to invoke the Rule." Then the judge says that the rule is invoked and all witnesses must leave the courtrooom until it is time for them to testify. After they testify, the judge may release them from the Rule. Parties are excluded from the Rule as are select others (maybe an expert).

The Rule basically says that witnesses cannot be present to hear or otherwise be told what other witnesses have said. The penalty for a witness even innocently learning about the testimony of another is to bar that person as a witness.

It may work differently in criminal cases, especially one as high profile as this one. It sounds like the judge put it in a written order and treated it as more than a routine matter. So, the judge may decide that more than the routine remedy is called for.

It is an unforgiveable thing for a prosecutor to do. But I am not surprised. I have concluded that prosecutors truly do not believe that any rule applies to them or that any judge would call them to task for anything. Violating the Rule is probably one of the least offensive thing most prosecutors do.

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

"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.

Is Moussaoui a citizen of the US? If not, how does he come by "constitutional rights"?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Regards,
GtG

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

That would'nt be the NYC I remember. But it has been a long time since I've been there.

[Inwoodian]

I'm an attorney and, although I practice on the Civil side, I have never seen a witness who did not discuss his upcoming testimony with the attorney who would be calling him. Such non-party witnesses are routinely excluded from the actual testimony and they may be cross-examined as to conversations with the opposing attorney. Such conversations do not comprise grounds for dismissal. This must be a local or personal Rule of this judge.

[HamiltonJay]

There is a difference between on the stand testimony and OPENING ARGUMENTS....

My experience is lawyers coach their witnesses all the time, and I've never seen a trial where what was said on the stand did not get out if it was a public trial. If Mrs. XYZ wasn't in the courtroom when someone else was on the stand, surely Mrs. XYZ's friend, uncle cousin or nephew will or can be... and word gets back to Mrs. XYZ.

The idea of preventing taint of a witness is a noble idea, but it just isn't reality.

ANd as for Coached, you are joking right? Attorney's and witnesses can spend hours if not days or weeks coaching their witnesses on how best to deliver a point, what verbage to use, what clothing to wear, how to look more sympathetic... etc etc... Yes certainly they can not say on the stand what they said in those session, but coaching of witnesses is part of reality.

Way I see it, both sides got the same information, there is no reason here for a mistrial or a dismissal... disciplinary action against the prosecuting atty perhaps, but come on.

[JoeGar]

This is another reason why our legal system sucks. The man has pleaded guilty folks!!! All he needs is a sentence!!! Why are we spending months doing something so simple???

[Wolfstar]

He should have been tried by a military tribunal.

I agree.

[Williams]

Lawyers are not supposed to "coach" witnesses, period. They discuss the testimony in advance to find out what it is, not to provide the testimony. The conversations they have with the witnesses can be revealed in court. No ethical lawyer tells a witness what to say, and especially not in a case as important as this.

In any event, whether the trial is covered on tv, whether the testimony is given in a "public" courtroom, there was an order prohibiting that information from being given to the witnesses. Those were the rules and everybody knew them. Further, I doubt the complete government opening statement was played on any news show so the witnesses likely didn't see it.

Wait until you are in court for whatever reason, prosecution, defense, plaintiff, defendant - and somebody tells you it doesn't matter when they break the rules.

We have this rule of law for a reason, and the government decided to try this guy in this forum. If the rules get broken regarding a death penalty case, you are going to catch some hell. I didn't say what the judge should do, I still think in this case the jury should decide. But the rules are there for a reason.

[Wolfstar]

Great. Just great.

Almost have to wonder if that TSA attorney deliberately sabotaged the trial. Sheesh!

[Wolfstar]

Sentence him to life in New York City. See how long he lasts.

Yeah. Drop him at Ground Zero in leg irons and invite the relatives of firemen and cops who died there. See how long he lasts for sure.

[SittinYonder]

Nominated by President Bill Clinton.

This is not the fault of the judge. I saw this happen a couple of years ago in a federal trial. Witnesses for the government inadvertently heard testimony, not realizing they were violating the rule of sequestration. The witnesses had not yet testified. The government brought the information to the judge and the judge ruled that the witnesses now could not testify.

If these FAA witnesses have not yet testified, they should be prevented from testifying, IMO.

If they have testified, I would think the judge would have little option other than to throw out the case.

Those who have said this should have been handled by a military tribunal are also correct.