Did you enjoy this article?
|
|
Sections
I SENT out a release on Monday that was factually incorrect.
The alert was based on a release that I received from the Dallas TX chapter of CAIR. Within minutes after I sent out our release, however, I received a call from my brother in Islam, Dr. Imad ad-Dean Ahmad, of the Minaret of Freedom Institute, to alert me of the factual discrepancy. I appreciated this call, as I consider ACCURACY in the media (including advocacy media) to be very important!
Since then, I have had an opportunity to read two reports on what actually did happen in that federal courthouse in Dallas,Texas - and what happened is absolutely shocking!
One report can be found below. A more lengthy, in-depth report can found via the following link:
Last Thursday, the jury reportedly found THREE of the leading defendants (Mohammad El-Mezain, Mufid Abdulqader and Abdulrahman Odeh) innocent on MOST of the charges in the indictment, and deadlocked on the remaining counts. That decision was sealed after their deliberations until this morning's reading by the jury forewoman.
After the verdict was read, the jury was individually polled by U.S. District Judge Joe Fish. It was at this time that some of the jurors expressed disagreement with the verdict (exonerating Mufid Abdulqader and Abdulrahman Odeh). Something happened between Thursday and today. The question is, what?
It is inconceivable, in this commentator' s estimation, that a jury forewoman would have made such a mistake - especially in a trial of this magnitude. What happened? Was the jury sequestered? (If not, why not?) If it was sequestered, did anything else happen during this four day period that may have resulted in illegal jury tampering, after the fact?!
THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE RAISED!
As expected, the prosecution has already announced its intent to retry all defendants on any and all counts that the jury could not reach a unanimous decision on.
Judge Declares Mistrial for Most Defendants in Muslim Charity TrialBy DAVID KOENIG - The Associated PressDALLAS 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. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. DALLAS (AP) 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.Original News First Released:
Mistrial Declared in Muslim Charity Case By DAVID KOENIG Associated Press WriterDALLAS Oct 22, 2007 (AP)
The biggest terror-financing trial since Sept. 11 ended in confusion Monday, with no one convicted and many acquittals thrown out after three jurors took the rare step of disputing the verdict.
Prosecutors said they would probably retry leaders of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, as well as the organization itself, which the federal government shut down in December 2001.
Defendants and their supporters considered the outcome a victory. Outside the courthouse, jubilant family members and supporters hoisted defendant and Holy Land chief executive Shukri Abu Baker on their shoulders and cried, "God is great!"
After two months of testimony and 19 days of deliberations, the jury reached verdicts for only one of the five defendants, finding former Holy Land leader Mohammed El-Mezain not guilty of 31 of 32 counts and deadlocking on the remaining charge.
Acquittals for two other defendants, Mufid Abdulqader and Abdulrahman Odeh, also were read in court. The normally routine stage after that, when the judge asks jurors whether the correct verdict was read, turned chaotic when three jurors said they disagreed.
U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish sent the jury back to resolve the differences, but after about an hour he said he received a note from the jury saying 11 of the 12 felt further deliberations would not lead them to reach a unanimous decision. Then he declared a mistrial.
The jury forewoman said she was surprised by the three jurors' actions.
"When we voted, there was no issue in the vote," she said in court. "No one spoke up any different. I really don't understand where it is coming from."
The jury had reached its verdicts Friday, but they were announced Monday because Fish had been out of town.
Juror William Neal told The Associated Press that the panel found little evidence against three of the defendants and was evenly split on charges against Baker and former Holy Land chairman Ghassan Elashi, who were seen as the principal leaders of the charity.
President Bush personally announced the seizure of Holy Land's assets in December 2001, calling the action "another step in the war on terrorism."
FBI agents and Israeli officials testified that Holy Land funneled millions of dollars to Hamas, which has carried out suicide bombings in Israel. The U.S. government designated Hamas a terrorist group in 1995, making financial transactions with it illegal.
Holy Land's lawyers deny the allegations and say the group helped Muslim children and families left homeless or poor by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The defendants were charged with dozens of counts, including aiding a terrorist organization, conspiracy, money laundering and tax charges. The only charge remaining against El-Mezain is conspiracy to provide support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.
Lead prosecutor James Jacks said in court that he expected the government to try the case again, but he could not elaborate outside court because the judge extended a gag order he placed on lawyers in the case.
"This is a stunning setback for the government," said a former U.S. attorney, Matthew Orwig. "There is absolutely nothing positive in that verdict today for the government."
Orwig said if prosecutors retry the case, they should dramatically simplify it and perhaps focus on fewer defendants.
The prosecution's key witness was a lawyer for the Israeli domestic security agency Shin Bet who testified under a false name. He said Palestinian charities that got Holy Land money were controlled by Hamas.
Neal, the juror, said he found the Shin Bet officer's testimony unconvincing that he would expect an Israeli official to condemn an ally of Palestinians.
Holy Land was founded in California in the late 1980s and moved to the Dallas area in 1992. The case followed terror-financing trials in Chicago and Florida that also ended without convictions on the major counts.
The government "failed in Chicago, it failed in Florida, it failed in Texas," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, one of dozens of Muslim groups named as unindicted co-conspirators. "The reason it failed is the government does not have the facts; it has fear."
The men faced as many as 20 years in prison on the most serious charges. Prosecutors chose not to allege that deaths resulted from the defendants' actions, which could have made them eligible for life in prison, according to a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office.
Comments (0 posted)
