A Blog For All - Comments - Keep it civil
"197 separate decisions"
The US Attorney is a fool.
You pick the 5 best (least confusing, most evidence, adequate sentence) counts and go with those. 20 years in the slammer on 1 count is just as good as 20 years on 5 counts and MUCH BETTER than zero years on 35 counts.
The DOJ has to learn to make the case an "easy" one. Then they can win it.
I'm confused. Am I supposed to believe that the verdicts rendered by the Jury were educated decisions based on the evidence offered? Or is it that one juror was able to law waste to whole case by refusing to indict/participate?
Who do I fault here, if this case has "voluminous" evidence - the prosecutors or the jurors?
I love the part of the story where it is noted that people outside were shouting "God is Great."
No they weren't. They were shouting "Allahu Akbar!" Funny how the MSM will clean that up every time.
It starts with the prosecutors, who decided on a trial strategy that included 197 counts.
Once they decided on that, the case takes on a life of its own, and the jury had to deal with all the information.
Ultimately, I would blame the prosecution for the failure to obtain convictions in this case.
That said, it was apparent in the course of deliberations that one or more jurors might not be engaging in deliberations as per the jury charge. An Allen charge was read as a result.
The strange events of today showed just how screwed up things became with this jury.
Someone will have to figure out what that was and why.
Lawhawk - are you confident that a civilian jury can tackle these kinds of cases? What are your thoughts about a professional jury system like they have in the UK?
A civilian jury figured out that Lynne Stewart was guilty; that Sheikh Rahman was guilty, etc.
There are plenty of complex cases that can result in convictions if the cases are presented coherently and expertly.
I'm not real familiar with the UK system, but the concept of a professional jury system goes against the American ideal of a jury of one's peers.
Came here from the Instapundit link and enjoyed your excellent coverage. IANAL but here's a suggestion. When DOJ prosecutors charge somebody with 27 or 53 or 76 counts of something, that's because they intend to coerce a plea bargain or bankrupt the defendant. However, Islamic terrorist enablers have no intention of plea-bargaining and have lots of Saudi money for lawyers. The DOJ legalists should act accordingly. BTW, no other developed country's legal system ever charges anybody with 197 counts of anything in a single trial. Maybe American prosecutors could take a hint from that.
Yes - I understand hewing to the ideal of being judged by a jury of one's peers.
How about a military tribunal for terrorism cases? Ultimately the crimes we are talking about here are related to abetting terrorism here and abroad. Can't that fall under the purview of military justice?
This could be the best that could have happened. Unless these ratbags are innocent the chatter from the verdicts /mistrial should generate a lot of leads.
CAIR's Nihad Aswad(?) was here crowing about how this was a victory of tolerance over prejudice.
And Noor something, the daughter of a guy who's already been convicted on similar charges, compared her father's and these guys' fight against terrorism charges to Rosa Parks sitting in the front of the bus!
Commenting by HaloScan
