Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on Trial in NY?

[FILO]

Originally Posted by Snaquebite

Couple of questions for the legal heads here...

Are they being tried as a group or will this be individual trials?

What procedural and national security problems will arise should even one if them attempt to represent himself? Will this not cause problems with disclosure of classified material?

I don't know enough about the other defendants, the prosecutions theories and evidence for each defendant to render an informed opinion. Are all of them being tried for participating in the planning of the 911 attacks? If the answer is no, than they will be tried separately. However, if the answer is yes than from a purely trial strategy position, no competent defense attorney, or 1st year law student for that matter, who is representing one of the other defendants, not KSM, would allow, without first making the record very clear through numerous pre-trial motions, that their client cannot be tried in the same courtroom with KSM. They'd have a very persuasive argument that his, KSM's, notoriety and role in the 911 attacks would have an extremely prejudicial impact on their clients ability to defend himself and thus receive a fair trial. Again without knowing the details regarding the defendants and the prosecution theories, I suspect 99 out of 100 judges would agree to sever the cases and order separate trials. As a result, I believe there will be separate trials.

On your second question, Andrew McCarthy over at National Review, in the corner blog, outlines in great detail all of the national security problems with a Federal Article 3 trial. As I noted in my previous post, as certain as I am that KSM will be found guilty and sentenced to death in the civilian trial, I'm equally confident that major long term damage will occur to our national security in the same trial.


The most interesting part of this trial will occur when they get to selecting the jury. In fact I'd be more interested in reading the written juror questionnaires, the potential jurors written responses and sitting in and listening to the void dire than sitting in the jury room with the trial jury during guilt phase deliberations. Facts and litigation theories are nice, but, most experienced litigation attorneys, especially criminal attorneys who work on capital trials, will tell you that most trials are decided at void dire, jury selection. This is important because, although I'm not totally up to speed on the rules of procedure in Federal Court Article 3 trials, the jury is a death qualified jury, meaning that in order to be sat as a qualified juror, that individual under questioning by the prosecution, defense and the judge, has agreed that they will at least consider the death penalty as an option, if and when they get to the penalty phases of the trial. You will see both the prosecution and defense working hard to kick people off as well as attempting to rehab potential jurors who they feel are good for their side but are at risk to be excluded for cause. I've witnessed some of the funniest shit between the banter of all those involved. It's incredibly interesting to observe.

Just to be clear I'm not an attorney and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express.

[JAGO]

What if he gets off?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29670.html

Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl, the second-ranking Democrat, also asked the question that many have raised: What if Mohammed gets off on a technicality or is acquitted?


Holder assured the committee that the United States has the ability to keep Mohammed in custody as an enemy combatant.


Holder’s main refrain, however, was that the decision to hold the trial in civilian court rather than a military commission was not political and was instead based on where he thought his best chance for conviction was.

***Suggested bookmark for those interestested in following news of this case from a law enforcement perspective:

http://www.ticklethewire.com/

v/r
phil

[Shar]

Originally Posted by JAGO

What if he gets off?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29670.html

Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl, the second-ranking Democrat, also asked the question that many have raised: What if Mohammed gets off on a technicality or is acquitted?


Holder assured the committee that the United States has the ability to keep Mohammed in custody as an enemy combatant.

Which in itself proves that this is not about due process, constitutional rights or anything of the sort. They are putting on a really neat costly show that could end up being extremely dangerous and potentially troublesome to jurisprudence down the line. Nifty!

[GreenSalsa]

Originally Posted by JAGO

Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl, the second-ranking Democrat, also asked the question that many have raised: What if Mohammed gets off on a technicality or is acquitted?


Holder assured the committee that the United States has the ability to keep Mohammed in custody as an enemy combatant.

Then whats the point of a trial if the administration is ASSURING us of a guilty verdict? By definition the administration is holding a "kangaroo court", one of the main sticking points the administration had concerning a military court.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by GreenSalsa

Then whats the point of a trial if the administration is ASSURING us of a guilty verdict? By definition the administration is holding a "kangaroo court", one of the main sticking points the administration had concerning a military court.

I wonder if the administration is speaking as the prosecution.

When does a DA, state's attorney, or U.S. attorney not say in a capital case "We got the guy, we got the evidence, he's going to burn."

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I wonder if the administration is speaking as the prosecution.

When does a DA, state's attorney, or U.S. attorney not say in a capital case "We got the guy, we got the evidence, he's going to burn."

Obviously not when he is a Muslim terrorist who shoots over 40 members of his U.S. Army unit in front of dozens of witnesses.

TR

[darbs]

Sen Lindsay Grahm (R-So Carolina) really gives it to A$$-hat, I mean AG Holder...

http://www.breitbart.tv/senator-pres...be-mirandized/

IMO, this will start a fire we won't be able to put out if start telling terrorists "they have the rigt to remain silent" etc...

I thought they were, or are the enemy?

[Marina]

It looks like one of the allies wants to get in on this cluster.

The Death Penalty Problem

9/11 Trial Puts German-US Relations Under Strain

The prosecutors in the forthcoming 9/11 trials in New York will be seeking the death penalty if the five defendants are found guilty. That could pose a problem for Germany, which is supplying vital evidence for the prosecution.

//

According to the current mutual legal assistance agreement between the two countries, should the information furnished by German investigators be used to impose the death penalty, Germany can insist that this evidence be considered inadmissible in court.

It's not the first time the two countries have locked horns over this issue. Shortly after the attacks, a heated debate flared up, followed by months of tug-of-war over German bank transfer documents, which played a key role in the trial of would-be French suicide pilot Zacarias Moussaoui.

//

The problems facing Germany in the upcoming New York trial are considerably more serious. Moussaoui had never lived in Germany and the dispute over evidence in his trial concerned only very few documents. But it is another story altogether with Ramzi Binalshibh, who was allegedly the main logistics man behind the attacks. He lived in Germany for six years and shared an apartment in Hamburg with two of the 9/11 suicide pilots, including Mohammed Atta, who crashed the first plane into the Twin Towers.

Working out of Germany, Binalshibh gathered information about flight training schools in the US and regularly transferred large sums of money to the future 9/11 hijackers. There were, therefore, a large number of references to the results of the German investigation in the old indictment against Binalshibh, which the Bush administration had hoped would be used in a trial heard before a military commission.

Justice Ministry Alarmed

Aside from that, federal prosecutors in New York will find it difficult to use confessions coerced using highly controversial interrogation methods such as waterboarding. "It is hard to imagine how the government could present a case against Ramzi Binalshibh where a significant portion of the government case would not be based on evidence gathered in Germany," says Thomas Durkin, who is a member of the ACLU John Adams Project and a member of Binalshibh's defense team.

This explains why Holder's announcement of the trial has alarmed the German Justice Ministry in Berlin and its subordinate agency in Bonn, the Federal Office of Justice, which is responsible for mutual legal assistance.

//

Ultimately, Moussaoui did not need to rely on help from German legal experts who questioned the admissibility of the evidence. He managed to escape the death penalty without their aid. One of the twelve jurors voted against death by lethal injection and Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...662814,00.html

[Shar]

Just kidding!

WASHINGTON - Pressured by a growing clamor from New York, the Obama administration has decided to move the trial of Sept. 11 terror suspects away from Manhattan, where it had been scheduled to take place just blocks from the site of the twin towers attack.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35132816...news-security/

This is becoming a pattern for the Obama administration.

Make a bold statement without really researching the issue and then quietly change your mind or backtrack, or whatever.

I give Holder 6 months tops.

and having the trial at West Point?

[Penn]

I note with interest civilian vs Military justice system. One wrinkle that questions our values, the 5th amendment. By coincidence one of the Marine MSG guards posted in Tanzania when the attacked occured is the Co-President of UPenn Military Veterans Assoc.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...-u-s-says.html

[Penn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/ny...ni.html?src=me

[ApacheIP]

Originally Posted by Penn

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/ny...ni.html?src=me

"Because of the unusual circumstances of Mr. Ghailani’s case — after he was captured in Pakistan in 2004, he was held for nearly five years in a so-called black site run by the Central Intelligence Agency and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — the prosecution faced significant legal hurdles even getting his case to trial.

On the eve of trial last month, the government lost a key ruling that may have seriously damaged its chances of winning convictions.

In the ruling, the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan of Federal District Court in Manhattan, barred them from using an important witness against Mr. Ghailani because the government had learned about the man through Mr. Ghailani’s interrogation while he was in C.I.A. custody, where his lawyers say he was tortured."



12 anonymous jurors...escorted away by US Marshalls.

We need a facepalm emoticon.

[rdret1]

I still cannot fathom why some in our government, including our justice department, want to treat these guys as common criminals instead of enemy combatants. I do not agree that torture is an effective means of interrogation, but Miranda doesn't apply to these guys either.