LGF

Breaking: Mistrial Declared in HLF Hamas Trial - Update: Official Verdict Document Added

Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 9:42:19 am PDT

Holy Land trial ends in mistrial.

11:35 a.m. The Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial ended in a mistrial Monday after the jurors deadlocked on most of the counts. But a government prosecutor said the Justice Department would retry the case.

Only one official – Mohammad El-Mezain, the Holy Land’s original chairman and endowments director — was acquitted on most of the counts by a unanimous jury. But he could still face prosecution on a charge of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism.

Another official — Mufid Abdulqader, a top Holy Land fundraiser and former Dallas public works supervisor — was originally found not guilty on most of the charges in the verdict rendered Thursday and unsealed Monday.

Abdulrahman Odeh, the foundation’s New Jersey representative, was found not guilty on most of the charges in the verdict rendered Thursday and unsealed Monday.

The jury was hung on the other counts. But when polled, some jurors told the judge that they did not agree with the verdicts on Mr. El-Mezain and Mr. Odeh, prompting the judge to declare a mistrial.

UPDATE at 10/22/07 10:09:55 am:

Here’s the verdict, in PDF form.

The official word from the US District Court in Dallas:

The jury has found Defendant Mohammad El-Mezain NOT GUILTY on Counts 2-32. Chief Judge Fish has declared a mistrial as to Count 1 for this defendant and on all counts for each of the remaining defendants.

UPDATE at 10/22/07 10:37:57 am:

Debbie Schlussel saw this coming.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you about this. I predicted the Justice Department would lose their case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Muslim charity that financed HAMAS in concert with CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and virtually every mainstream American Islamic group. And, sadly, I was right.

This morning, the HLF defendants were acquitted on many charges, and on the rest the jury was not unanimous, which means a hung jury—yet another victory for these blantant terrorist financiers. The judge declared a mistrial on those counts, but the fact that the majority of those jurors polled voted for acquittal says all we need to know. We lost, they won. And our “warriors” in the courtroom stink.

UPDATE at 10/22/07 12:09:36 pm:

Rod Dreher was in the courtroom when the verdicts were read and the mistrial declared: Holy Land Foundation snafu.

The thing I kept hearing was that the information in the government’s case was pretty damning, but that the narrative was so complex that even the sharpest jurors would have had trouble making sense of it. According to my sources, this jury was as glazed as a dozen Krispy Kremes throughout most of the testimony. When they walked into the courtroom this morning, I saw a jury that, in its manner of dress and presentation, was clearly a blue-collar jury. I understood then what one source of mine who’d sat through some of the testimony told me weeks ago: That this is like expecting his elderly grandmother from a tiny country town to sit through a graduate-level seminar in modern Mideast politics, and to make sense of it.

Anyway, it was a bad day for the government, but this story is not over yet. There is a retrial to come. The government is going to have to do something about its strategy, though. Moreover, a lot of useful information came out of this trial, particularly about how the Muslim Brotherhood runs the show among the US Muslim community’s main organizations. This is by no means trifling information.

Advertisement

106 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Dead Sea Squirrel  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:43:49am

Do it again, do it right.

2 g3n3r1c  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:44:05am

Murderous Thugs sign a I wont shoot if you don't pact
Hamas, Islamic Jihad sign Rafah ceasefire
Politics 10/22/2007 9:03:00 AM

GAZA, Oct 22 (KUNA) -- Hamas and Islamic Jihad signed a ceasefire to stop the armed confrontations and end escalation in Rafah after Sunday night's fighting left a Hamas activist dead and 18 other gunmen injured on both sides.
Local media Monday reported that representatives of the two groups met last night through the mediation of the Popular Resistance Committees and agreed to stop battles.
In the second statement of the kind in two days, the two groups said they agreed on a total immediate end to all manifestations of tension and this includes pulling out their fighters from the streets, removing barricades, and stopping all attacks, raids, and arrests, as well as releasing all arrestees and abductees.
The statement said the groups are to remove all causes for tension and set up a joint committee to look into the recent clashes and restore positive relations between them.
A similar scenario was seen Saturday when the two groups clashed in the same city killing a woman and injuring 15 people before a similar agreement was signed. However, the clashes erupted anew before this second agreement was announced.
Islamic Jihad leader Sheikh Nafith Azzam said the groups reached an agreement to calm the situation in Rafah. He told local radio all Palestinian energy should be put into countering the Israeli enemy and expressed hope there would not be more incidents of this sort.
Islamic Jihad's Quds Brigades fighter Mahmoud Eisa, 21, was killed in Rafah last night in the clashes with Fatah.
Medical sources reported machineguns and mortar shells were used in the clashes that left 18 people injured, four of them in critical condition.
Tension spread to Khan Younes where both groups deployed considerable numbers of activists. Sources told KUNA the tension reached the city after a Hamas armed group arrested Islamic Jihad leader Eisa Al-Farra.
The sources said Al-Farra, 55, was arrested after a raid on his home. An exchange of fire and heavy deployment began after the arrest.(

3 nnptcgrad  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:44:44am

What exactly does a mistrial mean? Are they going to have to go through another trial with a different jury, or are they free due to this?

4 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:44:46am
5 philipp  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:44:52am
But a government prosecutor said the Justice Department would retry the case.


Could anybody else do that? (Just asking, don't know much about the U.S. legal system.)

6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:45:02am

Try again, and scrub the jury better.

7 Ben Hur  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:45:07am

Judge must be a Zionist sleeper.

8 mickthemick  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:45:18am

re: #1 Dead Sea Squirrel

My thoughts exactly.

9 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:45:26am
10 earthwirm  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:45:29am

Blasted... This stinks. Any brave jurors telling what happened?

11 Charles  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:45:33am

They're not free. According to the report above:

But a government prosecutor said the Justice Department would retry the case.

12 ronaldusmagnus  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:46:18am

There was an inkling this would happen the week before last when it was reported that the jury had sent a question to the judge requesting guidance on what to do if a juror refuses to participate in deliberations.

13 Colonel Panik  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:46:28am

OT
From Hot Air:

Chuck Norris endorses Mike Huckabee.

I would have thought the Chuckster would be a Duncan Hunter guy myself.

14 The Pulchritudinous Patriot  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:46:58am

I want to be on the next jury.

15 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:47:04am

What's wrong with that jury? What a mess.

16 CIA Reject  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:47:11am

Maybe the government will be able to add jury tampering to the list of offenses this time around...

/Hey, I can hope can't I?

17 Dead Sea Squirrel  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:47:45am

re: #14 The Pulchritudinous Patriot

I want to be on the next jury.

Tip: Don't wear your LGF tee during the selection process.

18 BrianA  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:48:01am

It will be interesting to see if any of the jurors were subjected to intimidation tactics.

19 JammieWearingFool  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:48:02am

Surely the networks will now disciver the trial.

"A huge setback today in President Bush's so-called war on terror..."

20 pat  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:48:14am

Too many charges of a varying nature. Jury fatigue and a rogue juror.

21 galloping granny  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:48:36am

re: #10 earthwirm

Blasted... This stinks. Any brave jurors telling what happened?

This jury has had problems since day #1. The judgment originally came in with a bunch of not guiltys or "can't decides", the Judge polled the jury and three members said that no, they did not agree with that verdict. Mistrial.

22 somaking  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:48:39am

Jury tampering

23 Killgore Trout  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:48:57am

re: #18 BrianA

I think bribery is a possibility too. There's a lot of money at stake here.

24 tommygum  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:48:59am

If at first you don't succeed, try try again...

25 ronaldusmagnus  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:49:08am

It will be interesting to hear jurors' comments.

I suspect somebody is going to unload some major frustration, likely to be directed at the prosecution, the strategy and perhaps a numbnut or two on the jury.

26 Golem Akbar  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:49:14am

Another trial? Maybe this time the MM will pay attention. I can think of worse things (than a retrial) for the government to spend on.

27 galloping granny  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:49:25am

re: #15 Killgore Trout

What's wrong with that jury? What a mess.

They are scared. Probably rightly so. Next time they need to make sure the jury is anonymous and very well protected.

28 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:49:31am

As long as they're going thru the whole thing again, now would be a good time to tie up some loose ends:

INDICT CAIR!

29 BrianA  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:49:44am

The next jury needs to be sequestered.

30 wargammer2005  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:49:45am

remember people, 50% of the people in the Us that voted voted in the last two elections for traitors

and some of those people are on juries.

31 nolocon  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:50:37am

ANTICIPATED CNN HEADLINE:

"Defeat for Mr. Bush's War of Terror"

32 mickthemick  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:50:46am

re: #2 g3n3r1c

These are the people the HLF supports - the kind who can only stop killing each other so long as everybody agrees to kill Israelis. Then, of course, they can get back to the business of murdering and torturing each other. I wonder how much Muslim suffering HLF and similar organizations end up supporting, directly or indirectly. Any way you look at it, pouring funds into the "Palestinian cause" prolongs the war, and does nothing to make a "Palestinian state" possible (not that one should be created).

33 pat  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:50:58am

re: #25 ronaldusmagnus

But that may be unlikely, for unknown reasons the MSM has collectively decided to ignore this case.

34 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:50:58am
35 justamomof4  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:51:52am

Exhale. New trial . . .good. Keep them tied up and adjust tactics as necessary to win.

36 lawhawk  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:52:04am

Well, the mistrial opens the door to retry the charges, which is as I noted earlier today.

It remains to be seen what lessons the prosecutors will learn from this setback (and the lack of convictions is a setback).

This kind of case highlights the difficulty in trying to prove that entities are engaging in financing and funneling money to terrorist groups. Hopefully prosecutors handling these kinds of cases in the future will study what happened here and improve their chances of convictions going forward.

37 littleoldlady  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:52:18am

Next time out: K.I.S.S. !

/juries confuse easily...

38 storagemanager  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:52:31am

She nails it

...I've written repeatedly about Justice Department failures to successfully prosecute terrorists. They've lost the Sami Al-Arian case, the Sami Omar Al-Hussayen case, the Mohammed Salah case, etc., etc., ad naseam. All of these were incredible--but predictable failures for the so-called domestic War on Terror. I say "so-called" not because I don't believe these are terrorists. They definitely are. I say "so-called" because the Justice Department only goes after these parties after years, decades have elapsed. And, even then, it does so only when its hand has been forced, and does so half-heartedly

...

America versus the Terrorists . . . Desperate But NOT Serious. For how much longer will we trust American lives--and the lives snuffed out by HAMAS--to these failures at the Justice Department?

[Link: www.debbieschlussel.com...]

39 Opinionated  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:53:15am

For the next trial the Government has to make absolutely certain the IQ threshold of the jury is at least somewhat above borderline retarded.

40 Kreuzueber Halbmond  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:53:36am

Note to Justice Dept. - Prosecute them separately.

41 Opinionated  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:56:13am

re: #3 nnptcgrad

Another trial.

Look at the bright side. Terrorist money raised will have to again go for lawyers instead of bullets.

42 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:57:09am

So the two found not guilty got mistrials, too? Sounds like double jeopardy.

43 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:57:19am
44 Opinionated  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:58:10am

Imagine if the Left gets its way and captured terrorist enemy combatants get tried in civilian courts.

45 loppyd  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 9:58:40am

re: #3 nnptcgrad

What exactly does a mistrial mean? Are they going to have to go
through another trial with a different jury, or are they free due to
this?

New trial. New jury. Same facts.

46 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:00:05am
47 Kenneth  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:00:10am

Iranian border clashes

BRITISH special forces have crossed into Iran several times in recent months as part of a secret border war against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Al-Quds special forces, defence sources have disclosed.
There have been at least half a dozen intense firefights between the SAS and arms smugglers, a mixture of Iranians and Shi’ite militiamen.

The unreported fighting straddles the border between Iran and Iraq and has also involved the Iranian military firing mortars into Iraq. UK commanders are concerned that Iran is using a militia ceasefire to step up arms supplies in preparation for an offensive against their base at Basra airport.

An SAS squadron is carrying out operations along the Iranian border in Maysan and Basra provinces with other special forces, the Australian SAS and American special-operations troops.

They are patrolling the border, ambushing arms smugglers bringing in surface-to-air missiles and components for roadside bombs. “Last month, they were involved in six significant contacts, which killed 17 smugglers and recovered weapons, explosives and missiles,” a source said.

Can we admit it yet? Iran is at war with us.

48 Beagle  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:03:45am

Polling the jury is usually theater. Hard to believe the jury could be on different pages after weeks of deliberations.

49 pat  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:04:31am

More on The Justice Department's fraternization with terrorist sympathizers.
[Link: www.debbieschlussel.com...]

50 galloping granny  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:04:39am

re: #42 Ward Cleaver

So the two found not guilty got mistrials, too? Sounds like double jeopardy.

The verdict had to be unanimous. When the judge polled the jury three of the people on the jury said, no, they did not agree with that "not guilty." So, the verdict was set aside as not a valid verdict.

51 OldLineTexan  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:06:04am

re: #39 Opinionated

While I understand your disappointment, that's not a fair statement.

Given the complexity and length of the trial, and that it is a defense lawyer's job to protect his clients, I am sure there was enough confusion to go around without requiring anyone to be "borderline retarded".

Some prospective jurors were intimidated by the mere fact that it was a terrorism-related trial.

Some of the jurors may have been buried in a sea of "facts".

What did one guy have, like 197 counts against him? I have an advanced degree and I have already forgotten the exact number.

The Feds need to come back with a better trial strategy than just trying to throw the entire US Code against them to see what sticks.

OldLineTexan

52 beens21  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:09:31am

I think it was bad strategy to give a jury charge with 197 questions in it.They need to drop some counts and focus on the least complicated facts,with no more than10-12 questions per defendant.

53 captdiggs  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:10:56am

What a mess.
A verdict is supposedly reached, or not, read in court...and jurors jump up and say it doesn't reflect their verdict?

I have never heard of this before.

54 Charles  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:14:05am

See the update above -- we now have the official verdict document and more info direct from the court.

55 loppyd  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:14:54am

re: #51 OldLineTexan

Some prospective jurors were intimidated by the mere fact that it was a terrorism-related trial.

IIRC, didn't one or more members object to participating in deliberations?

56 doppelganglander  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:15:30am

As disappointed as I am that these creeps were not convicted, I can understand how overwhelmed and confused the jurors must have been. Financial shenanigans can be very hard to follow. Let's hope the prosecutors figure out how to break it down into manageable pieces for the next jury.

57 Kenneth  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:15:41am

11,000 rockets per minute!

Iran warned on Saturday it would fire off 11,000 rockets at enemy bases within the space of a minute if the United States launched military action against the Islamic republic.
"In the first minute of an invasion by the enemy, 11,000 rockets and cannons would be fired at enemy bases," said a brigadier general in the elite Revolutionary Guards, Mahmoud Chaharbaghi.

"This volume and speed of firing would continue," added Chaharbaghi, who is commander of artillery and missiles of the Guards' ground forces, according to the semi-official Fars news agency.

Good luck with that 11,000 rocket thing Mr. Mullah.

58 loppyd  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:15:43am

re: #54 Charles

As a legal geek I thank you Charles!

59 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:17:06am
60 loppyd  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:17:16am

re: #56 doppelganglander

Hey there!

Hopefully, the govt. will try to simplify where possible.

61 Necklace of Shoes  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:18:10am

If OJ and Blake taught us anything; in America it's "Innocent until proven broke".

Try 'em again. And again. And again.

62 Opinionated  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:18:53am

re: #51 OldLineTexan

Your defense leads to a conclusion that in certain cases jury trial should be abolished. Is that your intention?

There will be complicated trials and if jurors can not keep up they should admit to such before everyone wastes time and fortune.

63 Mr Spiffy  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:19:26am

If the gloves don't fit, you must aquit

oops! Wrong miscarriage of justice ...

(smells the same though)

64 Charles  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:21:11am

re: #59 buzzsawmonkey

The astonishing thing is how stupid the government persists in being, bringing overlarge, topheavy actions.

Prosecutors advance in part based on their success record. One would think that the federal prosecutors would be eager to present a multiplicity of individual, simple, direct cases, knocking over the pins (so to speak) one at a time instead of trying to build the Mother of All Cases which is almost certain to collapse under its own weight.

It's not just that -- they wait years to prosecute these cases, and in this case they had to be pushed into doing it at all. This really is a failure for the Justice Department.

65 Mr Spiffy  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:21:18am

re: #61 Necklace of Shoes

Great minds follow similar lines.

66 reine.de.tout  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:23:22am

re: #59 buzzsawmonkey

The astonishing thing is how stupid the government persists in being, bringing overlarge, topheavy actions.

Prosecutors advance in part based on their success record. One would think that the federal prosecutors would be eager to present a multiplicity of individual, simple, direct cases, knocking over the pins (so to speak) one at a time instead of trying to build the Mother of All Cases which is almost certain to collapse under its own weight.

Perfectly said. So glad you were able to put my thoughts together so quickly and succinctly!

67 loppyd  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:23:23am

Does anyone remember what Count One for El-Mazain was?

68 Opinionated  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:26:30am

re: #67 loppyd

Does anyone remember what Count One for El-Mazain was?

Something about being a terror supporting asshole?

69 Charles  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:27:14am

re: #67 loppyd

Does anyone remember what Count One for El-Mazain was?

Conspiracy to provide material support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

70 LanceKates  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:29:19am

Note to self, if I want to break the law, I should donate to islamic terrorist organizations under the guise of a charity.

Apparently, though illegal, it is legal.

People think of Texas and other southern states as being very safe and conservative.

This trial should should that is not true.

Get a concealed carry permit. Train, prepare.

If this can happen in texas, what can happen in YOUR state?

71 D'kian_  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:30:40am

re: #26 Golem Akbar

Another trial? Maybe this time the MM will pay attention. I can think of worse things (than a retrial) for the government to spend on.

If they do, it might be with a slant on the line of double-jeopardy nonsense (they did it to the Electoral College in 2000, why not to the justice system?)

And that's why treating Islamofascist terror as a law enforcement problem won't work. Of course, if American citizens are involved things are more complex. So there should be a law making any contribution to terrorist groups treason. That would give the prosecution some leverage.

72 RoughRider  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:38:19am

re: #70 LanceKates

People think of Texas and other southern states as being very safe and conservative.

This trial should should that is not true.

Consider that the trial is in Dallas County where the jury pool is being picked from Dallas voters who recently elected a deadbeat tax cheat Democrat as their District Attorney and a completely inept Democrat sheriff who ran on a platform not much more substantive than "I am a Latina lesbian. If you don't vote for me, you must be a racist homophobe."

I imagine a suburban jury pool would be much more likely to deliver justice.

73 shaneborgess  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:38:57am
"In the end, it was up to jurors, chosen specifically because they had virtually no prior knowledge of the case or of Middle Eastern politics in general, to piece the government’s massive international jigsaw puzzle together. The found that after 19 days of deliberations, they could not."

This is the third case lost against groups funding terrorism from abroad. I don't think our jury system can handle these kind of complex cases, especially when the first thing a defendants attorney does is stack the jury box with people without a basic understanding of the issues related to the case.

I have believed for years that America needs a professional juror system. This case is another argument for change.

74 toomanysnax  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:38:59am

re: #13 Colonel Panik


Who's Chuck Norris? Who's Mike Huckabee? Who's Duncan Hunter? Why do I care? Why should I care?

75 opnion  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:43:58am

Only the acquitted defendant walks. The government said new trials.
I bet that jury selection will be very careful

76 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:44:40am
77 loppyd  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:44:41am

re: #69 Charles


Thank you.

78 Catttt  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:49:16am

re: #64 Charles

re: #59 buzzsawmonkey


The astonishing thing is how stupid the government persists in being, bringing overlarge, topheavy actions.

Prosecutors advance in part based on their success record. One would think that the federal prosecutors would be eager to present a multiplicity of individual, simple, direct cases, knocking over the pins (so to speak) one at a time instead of trying to build the Mother of All Cases which is almost certain to collapse under its own weight.


It's not just that -- they wait years to prosecute these cases, and in this case they had to be pushed into doing it at all. This really is a failure for the Justice Department.

What would Mayor Giuliani do? He certainly is an expert, having worked in the department, and he has a reputation for cutting to the chase.

79 taxfreekiller[deleted]  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:50:15am
80 loppyd  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:57:13am

Here is a pdf version of the indictment. I wanted to read the actual claims in Count One, which they will all be retried for.

United States of America v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development et al

81 Carol Herman  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 11:00:23am

Oh, come on!

Everybody, today, knows OJ walked. Murders two people. The ex-wife gets it, because his actions were pre-meditated. Goldman got it. Because he was returning a pair of glasses left at the restaurant, where Nicole had been, before OJ killed her. She opened the door to her killer!

Our biggest problem, across the board, in this country, is that the government has too much power summoning you to court. To serve. But then the handicap starts: You're rejected FAST, if you don't fit into the stupid mold, lawyers call in.

You'd think at least most of us would stop being subpoenaed to serve.

Nothing doing.

The lawyers love to inconvenience you.

And, their party?

They've expanded on the Constitutional provisions ... making themselves a rich industry. While there's no ETHICS! Add one lever. That to be a lawyer, you can be dismissed when you have no ethics.

And, maybe, we'd approve thing.

The saud's have all the money in the world to sop up the legal profession. Heck, James Baker. Of Baker, Botts, and Moneybags, has been selling American assets to the saud's for decades.

Nope. Can't be fixed. You can get on the supreme court, these days, if you promise to rid the system of ROE. Rid them of the bastards who get to make fortunes, though? Nope. You'd be interfering with bid'ness.

82 captdiggs  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 11:06:46am

3 jurors dispute not guilty verdicts in Muslim charity terror-funding trial
1 hour ago

DALLAS - The trial of five former Muslim charity leaders was thrown into turmoil Monday when jurors acquitted three of them of funding terrorism - but some members of the panel disputed the acquittal of two others.

U.S. District Judge Joe Fish sent the panel back to resolve the differences, and because of the confusion, did not officially accept any of the jury's findings.

The verdicts were announced after a two-month trial and 19 days of deliberation. When they were read in court, three jurors said they were incorrect.

The jury forewoman said she was surprised by the three jurors' actions.

"When we voted, there was no issue in the vote," she said. "No one spoke up any different. I really don't understand where it is coming from."

[Link: canadianpress.google.com...]

I really have never, ever heard of this happening before.

Anyone else?

83 loppyd  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 11:21:32am

re: #82 captdiggs


The way that article reads is confusing!

Was the forewoman surprised because they had decided on a guilty verdict and these three now say they believed he was not guilty? I would assume if Not Guilty verdicts were originally delivered to the judge then it would be the reverse. No?!?!?!?!?!

Gaaahhh!

84 Shiloh  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 11:34:17am

This just highlights the mistake of waging a war on terrorism through legal means.

re: #64 Charles

re: #59 buzzsawmonkey

The astonishing thing is how stupid the government persists in being, bringing overlarge, top heavy actions.

Prosecutors advance in part based on their success record. One would think that the federal prosecutors would be eager to present a multiplicity of individual, simple, direct cases, knocking over the pins (so to speak) one at a time instead of trying to build the Mother of All Cases which is almost certain to collapse under its own weight.

It's not just that -- they wait years to prosecute these cases, and in this case they had to be pushed into doing it at all. This really is a failure for the Justice Department.

Clinton tried this approach through the nineties, leaving the prosecution (no pun intended) of the enemy up to lawyers and juries. You cannot wage a successful war this way. Our judicial system grants extraordinary privileges to defendants, but is entirely predicated on the defendants not being enemies of the United States.

These guys need to be handed over to the DoD and sent to Gitmo for 10 years or until this whole thing is sorted out. The Justice Department is a joke.

85 Ward Cleaver  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 11:45:41am

Charles, here's Rod Dreher's take. He was in the courtroom as the verdicts were read.

Holy Land Foundation snafu

I've been away from keys all weekend, at the Wendell Berry conference (more on which later), and have spent the morning at the federal courthouse here in Dallas, awaiting the verdict in the Holy Land Foundation trial. It was the government's most important terrorist fundraising trial to date. I was the last journalist allowed into the courtroom, and figured I'd be on hand for some drama. It was anticlimactic: the judge was forced to declare a mistrial on most counts, because the jury could not reach a verdict on most counts. The jury did exonerate one of the five defendants, but the other four will be retried, said the chief federal prosecutor.

I can't say I'm terribly surprised. I've been hearing from others who have been watching the testimony that the government has been overwhelming the jury with information. This passage from the Dallas Morning News story on this morning's verdict reflects what I've been getting from my sources:

But much of the government’s evidence, peppered with a blizzard of Arabic names with various spellings, was delivered to jurors through often dry testimony of federal agents, who seldom were allowed to expand on the context of the hundreds of exhibits on which the prosecutors were querying them.

In the end, it was up to jurors, chosen specifically because they had virtually no prior knowledge of the case or of Middle Eastern politics in general, to piece the government’s massive international jigsaw puzzle together. The found that after 19 days of deliberations, they could not.


The thing I kept hearing was that the information in the government's case was pretty damning, but that the narrative was so complex that even the sharpest jurors would have had trouble making sense of it. According to my sources, this jury was as glazed as a dozen Krispy Kremes throughout most of the testimony. When they walked into the courtroom this morning, I saw a jury that, in its manner of dress and presentation, was clearly a blue-collar jury. I understood then what one source of mine who'd sat through some of the testimony told me weeks ago: That this is like expecting his elderly grandmother from a tiny country town to sit through a graduate-level seminar in modern Mideast politics, and to make sense of it...

86 TalkinKamel  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 11:58:04am

I think one problem is the jury selection process itself.

The courts can rope in huge numbers of prospective jurors, and keep them hanging around jury rooms for months, while the lawyers question, poke and prod at them, trying to figure out what kind of people they are. They aren't looking for reanable, well-balanced people who will consider the facts impartially. They are, quite frankly, looking for people who can be easily influenced and persuaded. I remember when I was in on a jury selection process; the lawyers would immediately dismiss any juror who replied to questions about himself like "My name is John Jones, and I've lived in this town for 20 years! I have a wife and three sons, and I enjoy hiking and scuba diving!"

They loved jurors who replied like "Name, uh. . . Jimmy. Jimmy Johnson. I live with my mom in a---uh, I guess it's a trailer, you could call it a mobile home. Job? I'm, uh, on disability right now. Hobbies? Uh, I really, um, don't like doing lotsa stuff, ya know. . . "

It's really hard to convince juries like this of much of anything. And they're putty in the hands of defense attorneys.

87 6pat6  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 12:14:36pm

It is not double jeopardy (which means to get tried for the same crime twice) when a mistrial goes back to trial. The first guy was found not guilty on charges 2-32 (so he cannot be retried on those again), but the guilty was hung on count #1. The rest of his minions were hung on all counts, so they all can be tried again on the same charges later. All a Hung Jury means is that the jury was unable to decide guilt or innocence. It does not toss out the opportunity for another trial with the same and/or added charges later on.

88 6pat6  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 12:18:49pm

re: #86 TalkinKamel

Lawyers don't want educated people that can rationally determine real evidence from garbage, and are overall knowlegable people. They want uneducated drones that can be easily swayed and manipulated into whatever version of the "truth" both sides come to trial with. That, and "jury nullification" by judges, makes jury trials in this country a joke anymore.

89 msdixie  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 12:22:31pm

Our jury selection is jury-rigged. For example, the first time I was called up as a prospective juror in a trial, I was excited and wanted to be chosen. However, I was naive and said the wrong thing (I was interested in TVA and how it works) and was dismissed.

Five years later, when I was called up for a murder trial, I knew my strengths : older married woman working for a medical center and when asked what I did there replied clerical work(yes, that was part of the job but not all by any means). I was picked and it was a doozy of a trial. A young redneck and his buddy bludgeoned their friend to death with a baseball bat over a bag of pot! He was convicted but the pschopath (showed no remorse for the murder) will be let out in 7 1/2 years if he has 'good' behavior.

Seems like it is bassackwards when you have to pretend to be uneducated and uninformed to be chosen for the jury.

90 sheik yer'mami  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 12:33:18pm

The justice system is not able to cope with Islamofascism. There are a million reasons for that and we will not be able to begin to cope unless there is a complete rethink and overhaul of the current system. That goes for all the Western world, not only for America.

Islam is our enemy, always was, since 1400 years. The founding fathers never planned for Muhammedanism to invade America, otherwise they would have made laws against it.

In Eurabia they should have continued to teach history like they used to, not what they do now, which is cooking history in order to please the Muhammedan invaders.

They're all off the rails. Totally.

91 Ginn  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 12:45:40pm

re: #64 Charles

re: #59 buzzsawmonkey

The astonishing thing is how stupid the government persists in being, bringing overlarge, topheavy actions.

Prosecutors advance in part based on their success record. One would think that the federal prosecutors would be eager to present a multiplicity of individual, simple, direct cases, knocking over the pins (so to speak) one at a time instead of trying to build the Mother of All Cases which is almost certain to collapse under its own weight.

It's not just that -- they wait years to prosecute these cases, and in this case they had to be pushed into doing it at all. This really is a failure for the Justice Department.

Man, is it ever. The repercussions are enormous.

92 Ginn  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 12:50:42pm

Charles

Do you suppose CAIR will put out a "statement" over this verdict?

93 buzzsawmonkey[deleted]  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 12:53:35pm
94 Ginn  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 1:01:09pm

re: #93 buzzsawmonkey

Buzz.. great post.

Yes, "many ways to lose"

I agree.

95 djs713  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 1:03:58pm

re: #13 Colonel Panik

OT
From Hot Air:

Chuck Norris endorses Mike Huckabee.

I would have thought the Chuckster would be a Duncan Hunter guy myself.

The Chuckster disappointed me with his endorsement of Huckabee. All brawn and no brains I guess. Why would anyone support another former Arkansas governor from Hope? Huckabee's health care proposals sound like Hillarycare lite.

96 OldLineTexan  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 1:25:39pm

re: #62 Opinionated

re: #51 OldLineTexan

Your defense leads to a conclusion that in certain cases jury trial should be abolished. Is that your intention?

There will be complicated trials and if jurors can not keep up they should admit to such before everyone wastes time and fortune.

Your conclusion in the first statement - how did you get there from what I wrote? Because I do not see how you think that follows, nor have I ever advocated such.

Your second statement is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. In this case, however, I think the Feds erred in making the trial much more complex than it had to be by the sheer weight and variety of charges.

OldLineTexan

97 David IV of Georgia  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 2:13:44pm

I'll have to ask Rod about the trial when I see him this weekend.

98 ploome hineni[deleted]  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 2:33:38pm
99 beens21  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 2:44:10pm

two points, in the ND of Texas federal court,the judge conducts voir dire based on written questions submitted by the attorneys,some judges allow brief questioning by the lawyers. Also, you are not chosen for a jury, the lawyers have a certain number of strikes to get rid of those jurors they feel will be bad for their side. The first 12 left after the strikes become the trial jury.

100 SevoGuy  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 2:44:40pm

I'll say it again:

1,000,000 dead Americans before we get serious...includingblowing up the Brooklyn Bridge, Manhatten Bridge, Holland Tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel, The White House, DisneyWorld, The Lincoln Memorial, Congress, Wall Street, The Empire State Building...this list is endless.

When this happens, forget about your pension plans, health plans, life insurance plans, jobs, financial institutions...this list is endless.

Everything we Americans have worked so hard for will be gone. And what will we be leaving our children and grandchildren? They will be left with house to house fighting to rid our country of this vile thing called islam.

I sympathize with muslims who don't agree with the islamists; but you have done nothing to stop them.

When America falls, so falls the free world. Keep taking names of the traitors in our country.

101 cpuller  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 2:48:44pm

Welcome to United Islam of America.

102 Keelie  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 3:19:39pm

The Law will be properly applied once it stops being an exercise in intellectual and elitist showmanship... In other words - intellectual masturbation.

103 TalkinKamel  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 5:29:29pm

#88 6pat6

Exactly.

104 TalkinKamel  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 5:30:56pm

#88 6pat6

And, of course, this is yet another reason why terrorism should not be treated as a crime, or turned over to the judicial system.

105 DJ  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 7:31:33pm

And the libs/dems want to deal with terrorism using the courts and legal system instead of neutralizing them the way Republicans are (well - except for the libertarian moonbat RonPaul) and will continue to (as long as our country doesn't elect the socialist dems in '08).

106 Ledger1  Mon, Oct 22, 2007 10:55:56pm

re: #16 CIA Reject

Maybe the government will be able to add jury tampering to the list of offenses this time around...

/Hey, I can hope can't I?

re: #81 Carol Herman

Oh, come on!

Everybody, today, knows OJ walked... because his actions were pre-meditated... the handicap starts: You're rejected FAST, if you don't fit into the stupid mold, lawyers call in.

The saud's have all the money in the world to sop up the legal profession. Heck, James Baker. Of Baker, Botts, and Moneybags, has been selling American assets to the saud's for decades.

I too am bothered by the money part. If HLF and it tentacles (including CAIR) were successful in transferring bushel baskets of money to terror organizations it would seem just as easy to influence a jury, a judge or even the prosecution.

During the OJ trial there was a lot of talk of the close relationship between the defense and the judge. At one point the prosecution even thought about having the judge removed. It never happened and OJ walked.

There is a lot of money involved in this case and if some wealthy sheik really wanted to I am sure he could bribe or intimidate every member on the jury.

Complex cases are the criminal's friend - and they are hard to prosecute. But, when there is a lot of money it is even harder.

They never got Al Capone on any serious criminal charge – just tax evasion.

Given the money involved in this case and the players I don’t like the smell.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

  • Loading...

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Keeping the little green flame of investigative reporting alive.

Follow Lizardoid on Twitter

Books You Want 160x600

 Frank says:

Number one ain't you... You ain't even number two.