And In Other News, Some Justice
In the midst of a welter of articles on the Palin-Biden debate and the "crisis" on Wall Street that must be fixed via a $700 billion bandaid, it would have been easy to overlook this article in today's NY Times. And that would have been unfortunate because the news the article contained demonstrated that there is still a little room for hope in this country. Maybe the executive and legislative branches aren't doing their jobs, but some in the judicial branch still take their constitutional duties seriously.
Finding that a Yemeni cleric and his assistant had been deprived of a fair trial because of errors by the presiding judge, a federal appeals panel in New York on Thursday overturned their convictions in a prominent terrorism case once hailed by the Bush administration as a significant blow to Al Qaeda.
The appeals court judges found that the defendants, Sheik Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad and his aide, Mohammed Mohsen Yahya Zayed, did not receive a fair trial because the trial judge, Sterling Johnson Jr., allowed the jury to hear inflammatory testimony and other evidence that prejudiced the defendants’ case. ...
...in overturning the verdict, the three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, ruled that Judge Johnson erred in allowing the jury to hear evidence like the graphic testimony of a survivor of a fatal 2002 bus bombing in Tel Aviv, in which the defendants had not been implicated. Prosecutors had said the testimony was necessary to establish that the defendants knew that Hamas, which claimed responsibility for the bombing, engaged in terrorist activity, a point the defendants did not dispute.
Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr., writing for the appellate panel, said that the bombing, which killed six people, “was almost entirely unrelated” to the charges.
He also wrote that Judge Johnson should not have allowed testimony from another witness, Yahya Goba, who described spending time at a Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan that Mr. bin Laden visited.
But Judge Parker wrote that Mr. Goba’s testimony ranged far beyond that, as he described the camp’s training in explosives and weapons and the visits by Mr. bin Laden. He also summarized a speech Mr. bin Laden gave in which he talked about the importance of “performing jihad,” Judge Parker noted.
Judge Parker wrote that the value of the testimony of both the Tel Aviv bus bombing victim and Mr. Goba “was far outweighed by its unfair prejudice.”
This was a case the Bush administration brayed delightedly about after winning at the trial level, claiming that it was evidence that our he-man President was right to wage the Global War On Terrorism and he was right to trash the rights guaranteed by the Constitution because it was the only way to keep us safe.
Obviously, the federal prosecutors had been given orders to win, no matter what it took. In this case, the appeals court panel found that it took too much, and both the federal prosecutors and federal judge overstepped the bounds, so much so that they ordered the matter returned to the trial level in front of another judge (which indicates to me that the appellate judges had no confidence that the trial judge would mend his ways).
Both the prosecutors and the trial judge had to have known that the testimony, which had almost no bearing on the charges, would have an inflammatory effect on the jury. The trial, after all, was held in Brooklyn. By putting that testimony on, they rigged the trial. This time they didn't get away with it.
Well done, Second Circuit. Very well done.
Finding that a Yemeni cleric and his assistant had been deprived of a fair trial because of errors by the presiding judge, a federal appeals panel in New York on Thursday overturned their convictions in a prominent terrorism case once hailed by the Bush administration as a significant blow to Al Qaeda.
The appeals court judges found that the defendants, Sheik Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad and his aide, Mohammed Mohsen Yahya Zayed, did not receive a fair trial because the trial judge, Sterling Johnson Jr., allowed the jury to hear inflammatory testimony and other evidence that prejudiced the defendants’ case. ...
...in overturning the verdict, the three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, ruled that Judge Johnson erred in allowing the jury to hear evidence like the graphic testimony of a survivor of a fatal 2002 bus bombing in Tel Aviv, in which the defendants had not been implicated. Prosecutors had said the testimony was necessary to establish that the defendants knew that Hamas, which claimed responsibility for the bombing, engaged in terrorist activity, a point the defendants did not dispute.
Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr., writing for the appellate panel, said that the bombing, which killed six people, “was almost entirely unrelated” to the charges.
He also wrote that Judge Johnson should not have allowed testimony from another witness, Yahya Goba, who described spending time at a Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan that Mr. bin Laden visited.
But Judge Parker wrote that Mr. Goba’s testimony ranged far beyond that, as he described the camp’s training in explosives and weapons and the visits by Mr. bin Laden. He also summarized a speech Mr. bin Laden gave in which he talked about the importance of “performing jihad,” Judge Parker noted.
Judge Parker wrote that the value of the testimony of both the Tel Aviv bus bombing victim and Mr. Goba “was far outweighed by its unfair prejudice.”
This was a case the Bush administration brayed delightedly about after winning at the trial level, claiming that it was evidence that our he-man President was right to wage the Global War On Terrorism and he was right to trash the rights guaranteed by the Constitution because it was the only way to keep us safe.
Obviously, the federal prosecutors had been given orders to win, no matter what it took. In this case, the appeals court panel found that it took too much, and both the federal prosecutors and federal judge overstepped the bounds, so much so that they ordered the matter returned to the trial level in front of another judge (which indicates to me that the appellate judges had no confidence that the trial judge would mend his ways).
Both the prosecutors and the trial judge had to have known that the testimony, which had almost no bearing on the charges, would have an inflammatory effect on the jury. The trial, after all, was held in Brooklyn. By putting that testimony on, they rigged the trial. This time they didn't get away with it.
Well done, Second Circuit. Very well done.
Labels: Federal Judiciary, Justice, Terra Terra Terra
posted by Diane at 4:05 AM
2 Comments:
I read about that case and, like you, was proud of the Second Circuit (MY Circuit, as a New Yorker!) for doing the right thing.
There are still judges out there who take their responsibilities seriously.
Our Attorney General mukasey performed in a similar manner as he made his career trying the Blind Sheik. Justice, schmustice, he had a career to look after.
Post a Comment
<< Home