| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| Mistrial declared in Muslim charity case |
| 2007-10-22 |
| A judge declared a mistrial Monday for most former leaders of a Muslim charity accused of funding terrorism, after chaos broke out in the court when three jurors disputed the verdict that had been announced. One of the defendants, former Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development Chairman Mohammed El-Mezain, was acquitted of most charges. The outcome came about an hour after a confusing scene in the courtroom, in which three former leaders of the group were initially found not guilty. But then when jurors were polled, three of them said those verdicts were read incorrectly. Judge Joe A. Fish sent the jury back to resolve the differences, but after about an hour, Fish said he received a note from the jury saying 11 of 12 felt further deliberations will not lead them to reach a unanimous decision. 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." In all, five former Holy Land leaders and the group were accused of providing aid to the Middle Eastern militant group Hamas. The U.S. government designated Hamas a terrorist group in 1995 and again in 1997, making financial transactions with the group illegal. |
| Posted by:Nimble Spemble |
| #9 Terrorists engage in acts of war against the country and the population. The criminal justice system cannot handle it, broken as it is. Hell, on the best of days it cannot handle it. That is the nature of the beast. If the government cannot protect its citizens through the law enforcement and judicial system, then the citizens will do it through extrajudicial means or through vigilantes. The problem is one of control. Vigilantes can get carried away. San Francisco had situations in 1851 and 1856 that created vigilante committees to take care of criminal activities because of the breakdown and corruption of government. There were excesses and it was not pretty. It would certainly be better if government would do its duty. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2007-10-22 16:22 |
| #8 Yes it is difficult to get convictions where the facts are complicated and the terrorists are skillfull at building a defense based on "our money didn't go for bullets". On the other hand, - the prosecution could have made this easier to understand - the actions of the HLF4RD that were the subject of the prosecution were almost a decade in the past (it was only late in the Clinton Admin that Hamas was designated a terrorist group and the law wasn't as clear as it could have been); - current and future fundraising for Hamas has been pretty much shut down (its probably no more than 10% of what it was in the 90s). |
| Posted by: mhw 2007-10-22 16:10 |
| #7 Both Zenster and Excalibur make valid points. I can easily imagine a scenario here in the USA where the citizenry preceives the gov't dropping the ball and, thereafter, others take it upon themselves to redress an injustice. Anybody ever watched the HBO series Deadwood? Being a vigilanti is not always a bad thing. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2007-10-22 16:04 |
| #6 You talkin bout me o Stark, Excalifur? |
| Posted by: Black Jack Murtha 2007-10-22 15:54 |
| #5 An important part of treating this like the war it is means charging and convicting traitors with treason and sedition and sentencing them accordingly. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-10-22 15:48 |
| #4 the modern American jury trial, designed to let the guilty go free so that the innocent will not be unfairly convicted, is utterly ineffective in prosecuting the War on Terror. Is there some legal way for foreign nationals charged with terrorism offenses to be denied a trial by jury? After all, they are not citizens, are acting against the American people and therefore do not qualify as peers with respect to any jurors hearing the case. More than anything, as Excalibur so succintly notes: ... treating war as a criminal justice matter is a sure route to disaster. Long ago these Islamic swine declared war upon us. Our idiotically restrictive ROE in the early phase of Iraq should have taught us the folly of using police tactics against terrorists. We had damn well better begin treating this global conflict as a true war or be prepared for a sickeningly horrid butcher's bill—both here and abroad—once the fur really begins to fly. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-10-22 15:33 |
| #3 Something smells fishy. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-10-22 14:47 |
| #2 Except that the initial finding was non guilty. Two things come into my mind. First is that the verdict agreed upon was not the one read for some reason, perhaps tampering. Although, in that case more than three jurors should have objected. The more likely is that the three felt guilty was the proper verdict. The jury had been deadlocked for some time and had reported to the judge. He read the Allen charge which says the state and defendants have spent a lot of time and money to put on the trial, it is your responsibility to render a verdict. Go do your job! They went back and couldn't reach a verdict. So finally, the 3 agreed to vote not guilty with the other 9 knowing they would be polled at which point they could create a mistrial, the same result as a hung jury. Overall a farce, not unlike those routinely produced by OJ trials, and a demonstration that the modern American jury trial, designed to let the guilty go free so that the innocent will not be unfairly convicted, is utterly ineffective in prosecuting the War on Terror. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-10-22 14:19 |
| #1 Sounds like a mafia trial with goons sitting in the courtroom making gun gestures or slitting throat hand motions. |
| Posted by: Unique Battle 2007-10-22 14:09 |