[Wolfstar]

Are there FReepers who are also lawyers, and who might be able to shed some light on the legal ramifications of this mess?

[NativeNewYorker]

http://www.techlawjournal.com/people/brinkema.htm

Cornell law degree, Clinton appointee.

[RetiredArmy]

Stupid attorney could cause a terrorist to be set free because half the case can not be presented? SHE needs to be tried! For stupidity.

[Mike Darancette]

The guy confessed and told the court what he had done, this trial is about the sentence. Worst case would be no death penalty.

[CFC__VRWC]

One thing that's been unclear - did the witnessess the TSA attorney allegedly coached testify in the criminal trial, or only in the penalty phase? Because if they testified at trial, that might get the entire conviction tossed on appeal.

[Williams]

A number of observations, admitting that I am reacting as an attorney, but also as someone who has no sympathy for one of the main contributors to 9/11:

1. I'm more familiar with the option to bar witnesses from hearing other parts of the trial in civil cases, but obviously in this criminal case the judge issued a direct order to that effect. The parties knew that and were bound to follow the order.

2. This is a death penalty case and the judge is supposed to be totally neutral - not care what the outcome is. She is right to consider her options, and to take the violation of her order seriously.

3. The judge has among her options giving the jurors an instruction regarding the government's misconduct. Still, I am concerned if the article is correct and she has already disparaged the government to the jury. She has many options, including barring the witnesses, giving the jurors an instruction, and/or letting the defense counsel question the witnesses about this in front of the jury. I don't like what she told the jury at first blush, but frankly she was likely to do that after further consideration in any event.

4. Maybe I'm not speaking as an attorney now, but knowing who and what Moussaui is, it sickens me to hear the judge screaming about his constitutional rights.

5. I wonder if the attorney who sent this to the witnesses was not involved in the trial, and screwed up because they didn't realize the order existed. If so it's a major screw up but not an effort to interfere with the trial.

6. I think under the circumstances the government should have agreed to exclude the witnesses. The jurors know what the defendant did and they are either going to sentence him to death or not.

[SerpentDove]

>>Defense attorney Edward MacMahon...<<

A minor point, I know.

Ed ... MacMahon.

[pepperdog]

The stupid attorney should be fired! It is unbelievable! Such an important case should be assigned to a competent attorney with a proven track record.

[The Great RJ]

I never understood why this foreign national terrorist was being tried in a US court. Now the buzzard may go free on some technicality. Couldn't he just have some unfortunate fatal accident while in jail?

[HamiltonJay]

That was in violation of her pretrial order barring witnesses from exposure to any opening statements or trial testimony.

Huh? A witness can't be exposed to public testimony???? This judge is taking the fear of "tainting the witness" to an abject extreme.... who appointed this one?

[Chena]

Carla Martin, YOU'RE FIRED!!

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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???

[PAR35]

If it was a DOJ lawyer that had done that, dismissal and barring double retrial might be appropriate. Since it was an agency attorney, that would probably not be justified.

(The attorney should be introduced to the concept of contempt of court, and the top lawyer at the agency should probably be dragged in and chewed out as to the need for competent, well trained attorneys in the agency.)

It would probably be appropriate to bar all agency lawyers from the trial.

[mjustice]

It stinks that this lawyer made a boneheaded move. I hope the judge issues sanctions against Carla Martin. If the prosecution had a problem with the judge's pre-trial order, the time to fight it was *before* the trial starts.

MJ

[mondonico]

If we're lucky, he'll be shot trying to escape.