Holy Land Foundation trial: Mixed verdicts, confusion; Update: Mistrial declared
Update: LGF has the verdict doc. Debbie Schlussel says I told you so.
More on the chaos.
Update: Mistrial declared…
***
The Investigative Project on Terrorism reports:
DALLAS – Jurors in the terror-support trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) were ordered back to the jury room Monday morning after three panelists told a federal judge that they disagreed with the verdicts.
U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish polled the jury after announcing that HLF itself, and fundraiser Mufid Abdulqader were acquitted on all counts of providing illegal support to Hamas. Meanwhile, New Jersey representative Abdulrahman Odeh and founding HLF chairman Mohammed El-Mezain were acquitted on most counts against them.
It isn’t clear what jurors determined about HLF president Shukri Abu Baker or director Ghassan Elashi. They did tell the court they were unable to reach unanimous decisions on all counts. The men were charged with funneling more than $12 million in charity collections from the Richardson, TX-based charity to committees in the West Bank and Gaza that prosecutors contend are controlled by Hamas.
The WFAA blog:
Jurors in the landmark Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case acquitted some of the former Richardson charity organizers on charges they aided terrorists abroad, but appear to have deadlocked on other charges, according to the verdict unsealed Monday. One official — Mufid Abdulqader, a top Holy Land fundraiser and former Dallas public works supervisor — wasfound not guiltyon all counts. Two other officials — Mohammad El-Mezain, the Holy Land’s original chairman and endowments director, and Abdulrahman Odeh, the foundation’s New Jersey representative, were acquitted on most of the charges. U.S. District Judge Joe Fish said Monday ordered jurors back to the jury room to discuss whether further deliberations might allow them to reach a complete decision. If not, he is likely to declare a hung jury on many counts in the complex case. In all, the jury was asked to make 197 decisions on guilt or innocence. When polled, three jurors told the judge that they did not agree with all of the verdicts which were read, prompting the judge to send them back to the jury room. “Your verdict must be unanimous and it’s apparent to me from the answers of three members of the jury in respect to my question that the verdicts that I read earlier do not represent the unanimous view of the jury,” Judge Fish said. The acquittals are not final until the judge verifies them. Depending on what the jurors say after returning to the courtroom, the judge could declare it a hung jury or order them back for further deliberations. The five defendants have had an unexpected four-day wait to learn their fate after the verdict was sealed on Thursday because the judge was out of town. This delay came after 19 days of deliberations and a two-month trial.
Lawhawk takes a closer look.
Flashback: Homeland Security Implications of the Holy Land Foundation Trial
Flashback: Dennis Hormel predicted…Is the Holy Land Foundation Trial Heading Toward a Mistrial?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The American Street » Blog Archive » Justice redefined
- Tel-Chai Nation
- Bill's Bites
- Michelle Malkin » Breaking: Holy Land jihad defendants convicted on all terror-related charges
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Jihadists
Riehl World View
» Bet: Ratings Fail - Oprah/Obama Christmas Special
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year planNewsBusters.org
» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The ObamasRiehl World View
» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin RisesStop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristGay Patriot
» The O So Hip Obama
This is not good.
I find most members of a jury are not rocket scientist. Another reason terrorism should not be treated as a criminal matter because our courts continue to fail us. Terrorism is an act of war these people are aiding and abetting the enemy who want to destroy our way of life.
From the very beginning after following Dallas local news and LGF and Frontpage, I was a bit worried and skeptical. why could not the prosecution nail the defendants’ claims and silly arguments or is it because of dumb jury members. Do you have the racial breakdown of the Jury, MM?
What the hell is going on in Texas? First they put border patrol agents in jail for enforcing the law. Second the cowboys loose against the patriots, and now maybe a mistrial. I hope its not turning into San Francisco down there. Is it Miller time yet?
Que Pasa, Texas?
Is it any wonder why they wish to be tried under our laws?…
Liberals can’t get lawyers to the detainees in Gitmo fast enough.
Freedom for thee, but not for me…
Please don’t ask for a racial breakdown of the jury- it looks bad. Plus I have noticed that stupidity comes in ALL colors.
What?
I guess it is Miller time down in Texas. Bring your leather suit and chains.
Have there been any ‘alleged terrorist’ attempts in CA or TX? Do all the active attempts only happen on the East Coast?
Terrorists aren’t dumb; why attack, at this time, those that appear friendly!
Its not all of my friend. Not even most of us.
Why we can’t try captured terrorists in civilian courts…
Jury tampering?
Pretty scary when even our own citizens refuse to recognize the threat we face.
Any reports of dancing in the streets in the Middle East?
Hopefully they will be tried again, and hopefully the prosecutors will be able to make a better/simpler case. 197 counts? That’s just ridiculous! Maybe they were all valid, and maybe you have a better chance of conviction when you try to hit all the bases, but can’t we pare it down a little bit so the jurors have a better chance of understanding exactly what is at stake?
Blaming the jury here is ridiculous. We have no idea what happened during this trial.
I had a friend on a federal terrorism case. Hung jury. He told me the government’s case was shamefully bad and they couldn’t prove a thing. And he’s a paralegal working for a major law firm and applying to Ivy League law schools. He’s no dummy. And, since sivapragasam is probably very interested, he’s white too!
Just because you think someone is guilty of funding terrorists doesn’t make it so. These cases are usually very difficult and if the government can’t make its case, then a hung jury or acquittal is appropriate.
And anyone who wants to just throw people in Gitmo without a trial…no. If you can’t convince 12 people that this group was funding terrorism, then you can’t lock em up and throw away the key.
Just remember, to a liberal, a conservative is guilty regardless of the lack of evidence; while a liberal or terrorist is totally innocent no matter how high the mountain of evidence against them is.
This is why the left wants to fight the war in the courts – they use the same rhetoric, and want the same results.
I think it’s not unreasonable to ask the racial makeup of the jury. Just as you would ask the gender makeup of a jury. The knee-jerk rejection of such an inquiry shows the problems with trying terrorists in our justice system. If political correctness has infected the basic of questions, what does that say about trying to get a guilty verdict on a perceived “victim” group?
More specifically, I think it important to know if there was any Muslims on the jury. It wouldn’t be out of the question, being that a jury is supposed to be a jury of your peers. What more of a peer could the accused have than a brother or sister in faith?
Just because somebody is Muslim doesn’t mean they wouldn’t vote to convict. But one has to be curious when reports leak about one juror refusing to vote at all. Only someone with strong convictions could be expected to so fervently go against the system.
Gee Rusty, Osama Bin Laden would be presumed innocent given your ridiculous criteria for culpability. In case you hadn’t noticed, we are in a war. Our enemies do not deserve the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.
Rusty:
I am so glad you have so much faith in our judicial system, even after the OJ trail. far be it from us to not preclude the possibility that some of the jurors here perhaps had their own agenda.
On the flip side, just because a jury of 12 DOESN’T convict you, doesn’t mean you are innocent.
Nice try Rusty, what makes you think I am white. I am Indian, you know…. the India in the other side of the world in Asia… that Indian.
sorry JoAnn, thanks to John Grisham, I have a reasonable exposure to the process of Jury Selection. In the recent past we have had a classic case on copyright, piracy laws where a juror was a computer illiterate, don’t we?.
Also, since Jury Selection is part of the legal process, both the prosecution and the defendants tend to choose the Jury Members whom they perceive favourable to their stand, there is no harm is looking at the race.
I rest my case.
If you guys still insist that I am wrong, please say so. I will then be more guarded in my comments. Any legal eagles out here, your opinions matter the most.
Our citizens do!
If citizens collaborate with the enemy they are traitors, and deserve to be treated as traitors.
Islamo-facists in the almost 2500 mosques in North America that teach radical Wahhabism – hatred of Jews,Christians, and anyone who isn’t Muslim – have not a shred of respect for the Constitution of the United States! Unfortunately, the Islamo-facists who have received Medical Degrees, Science Degrees, Political Studies Degrees, Engineering Degrees, Teaching Credentials, and especially LAW Degrees from American Universities USE and abuse the Constitution to their advantage. Look at the extremists groups that are opposing David Horowitz and the experts who are trying to educate the citizenry about the REAL threats by our sworn enemies! NY Rep Peter King has been severely maligned by CAIR and their well entrenched organizations for trying to alert Americans about the growing Islamo-facism extremist threat to the USA. In the 2006 election, a Muslim took office in Congress by swearing on the Koran which teaches the overthrow of democratic institutions! When will we wake up? Another problem is that tax-payers are footing the bill for terrorists to be set free to start all over undermining the American way of life. Want to know where the mosques are in America and those under construction? Check out: GaramChi.com That site will tell Muslims if their name appears on the Homeland Security Blacklist! Columbia University started a blog “The Islamic Workplace”: ribl9@columbia.edu and Islamicity.com will send anyone a booklet on “Strategic Planning & Implementation of Islamic Organizations” if you request it! Americans and our Government have completely “underestimated the determination of our enemies” right in our homeland! jb
Correction for Columbia University blog site: rib19@columbia.edu jb
I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about my friend who voted to acquit someone in a federal terrorism trial.
Ridiculous criteria? You mean the burden of proof? You really have a problem with burden of proof? If we’re going to take the trouble to lock someone in prison and throw away the key, surely the government should prove that we’re doing that to the right people. It’s the government’s responsibility to make a good case. They obviously failed here.
Just because a jury didn’t buy the government’s charges doesn’t make them dumb, Muslim, or out to get America. As I said before, my white Christian politically independent law student friend voted to acquit a “terrorist.”
Because the government had no case. Which is the problem. If the HLF is really so bad, don’t be pissed at the jurors. Be pissed at the prosecutors.
And are you really advocating throwing people in jail with no trial? Because that’s a pretty frightening precedent to set.
Rusty #25
My bad!
The jury found them not guilty on most charges. We haven’t followed the trial and don’t really know what the evidence was. It is possible that they actually are innocent.
Making the situation more complicated is the fact that much of Hamas is in fact a charity. They run schools and hospitals supported by donations from abroad. This might make it harder for the prosecutors to prove that the donations were intended to support terrorism. They might have been intended to support education.
Ironically, the acquittal may make us safer. If Muslims around think America is truly a land of justice, fewer of them will want to attack us.
I don’t know LGM, even I think that’s pretty optimistic.
Perhaps you were on that jury… What alternate universe are you living in? This is Islam we are talking about. They hate us in part because we are a land of justice. Wake up and smell the Jihad.
Close. Actually it is the reverse. The prosecution and the defense go through a process not really of selecting, but of eliminating potential jurors they feel will be prejudicial to one side or the other.
Each side gets a set number of “preemptory challenges” which means they can dismiss the jury candidate as unfit with no reason or explanation. Those are like wild cards, so in clear cases, they will challenge “for cause”, and dave their preemptory challenges if they can.
A for cause challenge must be backed up with a thorough explanation as to why the person is unfit, i.e., why there is little chance that this particular person will be impartial. And it has to convince the judge it is a legitimate call.
And just because a jury deadlocks does not mean the defendants are innocent. All it takes is one person to deadlock a criminal jury.
What happened today is rare indeed. The jury announces that they have a verdict, and then no less than 3 of them say they were not in agreement in open court. I have heard of this happening before 3rd or 4th hand, but this is the first time I have seen it in a particular case. Sometihng very strange was happening in the jury room.
And yes, 197 counts against multiple defendants is more than slightly confusing. The legal issue is that if you do not bring all the counts in at one trial, the government can be deemed to waive some or all of those not charged. What they can do is try each defendant individually to cut down on the confusion, but since the trials are public, the lawyers for the remaining defendants get to essentially copy the prosecutors playbook.
At this point I think no one criticize the jury for anything, particularly in light of 3 of them swearing in open court they the foreman misrepresented their decisions regarding the verdict. No one knows what went on.
The case will be retried.
Here it was the opposite. The jury found acquitted on almost all of the counts before three jurors objected.
My friend’s terror case also had a majority voting for acquittal before the deadlock.
I suspect it’s very difficult for people in terror cases to get fair trials.