Al-Arian Case In Jurors' Hands
Published: Nov 15, 2005
ADVERTISEMENT
More from this channel:
Search our archives: Type keyword(s)
TAMPA -- Take a complex, 51-count, international terrorism trial, mix in nearly a dozen lawyers, and the result is a 95-page jury instruction that takes more than three hours to read.
Jurors weighing the fate of former University of South Florida Professor Sami Al-Arian and three others endured a confusing morass of legalese read aloud by U.S. District Judge James Moody on Monday afternoon. Then the judge informed six panelists that they were alternates who may never get to say a word about the defendants' guilt or innocence.
Al-Arian, Ghassan Ballut, Hatim Fariz and Sameeh Hammoudeh are charged with four conspiracy counts alleging racketeering, conspiring to commit murder abroad and providing material support to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. They could face life in prison if convicted.
Jurors should start deliberations this morning by choosing a foreman.
Moody braced jurors for the instructions, telling them they were "the least exciting, the most boring, but that which you have to pay the most attention to."
He bumped one juror to alternate status earlier Monday. In August, a second juror had reported overhearing that man call Al-Arian's school and other entities "fronts" for Islamic Jihad. A third juror said he heard the comments, too.
Defense attorneys wanted the juror in question removed from the case entirely but seemed pleased by Moody's ruling swapping him with an alternate.
"I thought it was absolutely necessary to ensure a fair trial," said Hammoudeh's defense attorney Stephen Bernstein. "I thought it was a no-brainer after what we heard from the jury itself."
William Moffitt, one of Al-Arian's attorneys, said the man and two other jurors he spoke with should be removed because Moody told the panel not to discuss the case.
"Anytime a juror doesn't follow the court's instruction, and anytime there's not candor, there's a problem," Moffitt said.
Earlier Monday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Terry Zitek completed the government's rebuttal of last week's closing arguments by the defense. Attorneys had argued that their clients may have voiced support for the Islamic Jihad but only sent money for needy families and orphans.
Zitek pointed to an FBI analysis of bank records that prosecutors say show some donated money diverted to fund a think tank and a school Al-Arian founded.
"When a terrorist organization like the Palestinian Islamic Jihad collects money and pays itself support, that's not charity," Zitek said. "The word 'charity' does not belong in the same sentence as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad."
He was equally dismissive of defense assertions that the men are being prosecuted for their words and beliefs.
The government is enforcing the laws of the United States, Zitek said, by prosecuting people who worked for an organization whose sole objective is to murder and maim.
"The defendants are all active members of a secret cell here in the United States," Zitek said. "They knew full well what the PIJ did ... and they performed their assigned roles to further the [group's] illegal objectives."
