You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
Report: Lone Juror Kept Moussaoui Alive
2006-05-12
WASHINGTON (AP) - A single holdout kept the jury from handing a death sentence to Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged in this country in the 9/11 attacks. But that juror never explained his vote, said the foreman of the jury that sentenced the confessed al-Qaida conspirator to life in prison last week.

The foreman, a math teacher in Northern Virginia, told The Washington Post that jurors voted three times - 11-1, 10-2 and 10-2 - in favor of the death penalty on the three terrorism charges that each qualified Moussaoui for execution.

On April 26, the third day of deliberations, the jury's frustrations reached a critical point because of several 11-1 votes on one charge. But no one could figure out who was casting the dissenting vote, the foreman said, because that person didn't identify himself during any discussion - and each of the votes were done using anonymous ballots.

``But there was no yelling,'' she said in an interview for the Post's Friday editions. ``It was as if a heavy cloud of doom had fallen over the deliberation room, and many of us realized that all our beliefs and our conclusions were being vetoed by one person. ... We tried to discuss the pros and cons. But I would have to say that most of the arguments we heard around the deliberation table were'' in favor of the death penalty.
I served as a juror on a murder trial once. I can't imagine being the lone hold-out and then not speaking out as to why. It's dishonest -- being the lone 'no' vote is fine, but you have to explain your vote, even if it's to say, simply, 'the state hasn't proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt'. Then you can talk about what the doubts are.
The foreman, who was not identified by the Post, said she voted for the death penalty because she believed the government proved its case. She was the second juror to be interviewed by the Post since the trial ended. The first juror said he voted for life in prison because he thought that Moussaoui, 37, had only a marginal role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema had ordered the identities of the jurors withheld for security reasons. The Post said the foreman contacted the newspaper and was interviewed on the condition of anonymity by a reporter who recognized her from the trial.
Posted by:Steve White

#30  Frankly, I can't see killing someone because of what they knew and didn't tell us,

Why not? What he didn't tell us was a plot that killed 3,000 and was intended to kill 10's of thousands, destroy the Capital Building, and disrupt our military command and control.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2006-05-12 19:29  

#29  May be I am just a redneck from Carolina, but when did the Constitution become the mantra for foriners in such cases?
I personally am tired of this. Just because your caught in the U.S. dosent mean you get the benefits.

Personally, I think the Constitution is reserved for United States Of America's actual citizens and not transients. This loser should have never been tried in this manner.
Posted by: SCpatriot   2006-05-12 19:25  

#28  
Oops! sartest=smartest
Posted by: I will add 2 cents more.   2006-05-12 15:49  

#27  
"That jury holdout did him no favor at all."

That jury hold out may have been the sartest one on the jury. Someone else here said the sentence was "cruel".

I dissagree, it is harsh, but it should be. But it is not cruel.

-2 cents more.
Posted by: I will add 2 cents more.   2006-05-12 15:48  

#26  The Prison Journal
(In 2002?) The average daily cost for inmates at the supermax facility in Colorado in 1999 was $88.72, compared to the daily cost of $50.82 for a maximum security prison. Annually, the cost per year in a supermax prison was $32,383 compared to $18,549 for a maximum security prison.

I would be more in favor of forming a prisoner army to conquer and pillage the middle east than in boarding any Moussaouis.
Posted by: ed   2006-05-12 14:24  

#25  #14: "Putting him through this kind of confinment is cruel"

Not half as cruel as what he wanted to do.

Let 'im rot in Supermax - until time for him to rot in HELL.

None of these jihadis or jihadi-wannabees will get one iota of sympathy from me.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2006-05-12 14:21  

#24  Absolutely - he'll end up just like the polar bear at Bristol zoo - totally mental within a year, pacing up and down.. no better fate for a wannabe jihadi..
Posted by: Howard UK   2006-05-12 14:13  

#23  How long will Moussaouis's success comfort him, as feels his borderline insanity become full-blown? He changed his mind after only a weekend in his new home -- I don't think it will take long. The remainder of his life won't be terribly expensive. Think of it as Gitmo-isolation tank... and he won't even have the satisfaction of throwing his feces at the guards.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-05-12 14:10  

#22  Moussaoui is a failure, not a martyr. But by allowing him to live, he becomes a symbol of turning failure into success by sucking millions of $ enemy resources that could be used for battle. Even in failure, he shows the muslim world that they can continue to inflict damage to the soft west.
Posted by: ed   2006-05-12 12:05  

#21  we dont need no martyrs
Posted by: bk   2006-05-12 11:38  

#20  You're right GK. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has "ended" alot of practices that are clearly defined in the Constitution. Contructionism has been almost entirely replaced by activism.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-05-12 11:30  

#19  A agree with you,mc. However, the US Supreme Court doesn't agree with us. June 2002: In a 7-2 decision in the case of Ring v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court ended the practice of having a judge, rather than a jury, decide the critical sentencing issues in a death penalty case.
That decision took three heinous killers off of death row here in Colorado and converted their sentences to life in prison.
Posted by: GK   2006-05-12 11:20  

#18  Guilt and innocence should be left to juries to decide. The Constitution guarantees trial by jury. But it says NOTHING about a jury deciding the punishment for a crime. That should be a matter of the Judge simply reading codified law. There will always be some loon on the jury who, despite overwhelming evidence that the defendant is a monster, will veto the death penalty because they have no concept of the law, nor of the concept that a man should get what he deserves. Not retribution, not revenge but just desserts.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-05-12 10:22  

#17  It is, but the point of a justice system is to punish people and deter others. I'd say the penalty does both.

I'd suggest it does neither.

Deterrence:

We've been executing people for murder for at least 10,000 years. During that time the prevalence of murder has fluctuated but there is no evidence that this is strongly related to the imposition of the death penalty. If we really believe deterrence is the purpose, executions should be televised and done in the most painful manner possible under the cruel and unusual punishment rule. I would favor hanging as it was the primary method in use at the time of the drafting of the constitution.

Punishment:

Make the punishment fit the crime. In this case the punishment is separation from society, either through execution or imprisonment. Execution has the advantage of being unappealable. Imprisonment has the advantage of no drawn out mandatory appeal process. I prefer whichever is less expensive.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-05-12 10:04  

#16  Life in supermax.
Moussaoui went from "I won, you lost" to wanting a do-over after the stark reality of life in supermax hit home. Rotting slowly in solitary is WORSE than death. It's a dungeon, a well lit dungeon, but a dungeon none the less. That jury holdout did him no favor at all.
Posted by: My 2 cents   2006-05-12 09:57  

#15  Putting him through this kind of confinment is cruel

It is, but the point of a justice system is to punish people and deter others. I'd say the penalty does both.
Posted by: phil_b   2006-05-12 09:49  

#14  Frankly, I can't see killing someone because of what they knew and didn't tell us, yet for his silence, his life will be a torture of nothingness. I'd rather be dead. Putting him through this kind of confinment is cruel and it shows just how out of touch our judicial system has become.
If he was a soldier planning for an attack, but was captured, he would be right not to talk. In his mind that is the case. No doubt he was read his Miranda rights. Was he not just following his rights ?
It's the issuing of the Miranda which should be on trial here. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney. If you can't afford one, one will be assigned to you.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-05-12 09:32  

#13  Keep an eye towards the French......
Posted by: OyVey 1   2006-05-12 08:44  

#12  Why did the other 11 agree to take the verdict in? They were only out a week. I'd have waited the jerk out at least a month and kept the jury going until the person was uncovered and made to present their case. The jury foreperson should also have called for a hand vote instead of a secret ballot in order to expose the holdout.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-05-12 08:25  

#11  On April 26, the third day of deliberations, the jury's frustrations reached a critical point because of several 11-1 votes on one charge. But no one could figure out who was casting the dissenting vote, the foreman said, because that person didn't identify himself during any discussion - and each of the votes were done using anonymous ballots.

While I personally think rotting in Supermax is more fitting, this was cowardly and inappropriate. How can a jury deliberate the issues pro and con, hear all sides, attempt to convince hold-outs, gain consensus, etc? The lone hold-out did so clandestinely it appears, which is cowardly. This is a pretty good argument in favor of a military tribunal I'd say.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-05-12 08:25  

#10  Technically this person failed their duty to deliberate. Voting up or down is not deliberating. Aslo I would check this persons bank deposit history; there may be a big spike after jury selection.
Posted by: airandee   2006-05-12 08:16  

#9  If Moussaoui had been given a death sentence, he would get at least half a dozen chances to spout off, probably personnally, in various appeals.

Each time, he would get super-duper publicity.

Its a serious downside of the death penalty in this case.
Posted by: mhw   2006-05-12 07:55  

#8  In boxing lingo you would call that guy a "Ringer".
Posted by: Omase Unaviger5871   2006-05-12 07:55  

#7  I've never sat in a jury box, or even watched a real (vs. TV) trial. In a situation like this, is there an option for non-anonymous voting?
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-05-12 07:11  

#6  You may be right, GJ. In that case he should collect all his fees in advance.
Posted by: GK   2006-05-12 05:46  

#5  "I just wonder why he didn't share those thoughts with the other jurors."

The terminal cynic in me says there's a 15 minutes of fame / book deal brewing in this twit's head.
Posted by: Gleresing Jomolet9901   2006-05-12 04:14  

#4  The AP reporter obviously knows the identity of the sole hold out and his reason for not approving the death penalty:
The first juror (of two interviewed) said he voted for life in prison because he thought that Moussaoui, 37, had only a marginal role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. I just wonder why he didn't share those thoughts with the other jurors.
Posted by: GK   2006-05-12 03:59  

#3  This makes me sick. We are not a serious country if our concept of justice cannot include executing the people who attacked us on 9/11.
Posted by: JAB   2006-05-12 01:41  

#2  Grrr!
Posted by: 3dc   2006-05-12 01:07  

#1  Prob the same person whom left the Alamo, shot Jesse James in the back of the head, and shot Liberty Valance also!?
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-05-12 01:06  

00:00