Not "what were they thinking"--but "were they thinking" is the question of the day. Government lawyers in the penalty trial of convicted al Quaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui coached some of the FAA witnesses in clear violation of the judge's orders in the case. Worse, the potential witnesses got copies of the emails sent to the others in an implicit attempt to make sure that all the witnesses' testimony agreed, also violating the judge's orders. Still worse, it came out in court yesterday as the judge, Leonie Brinkema, questioned the potential FAA witnesses., that one of the attorneys never told the witnesses that if they were willing, they could talk to the defense attorneys . . . while that same attorney had told Judge Brinkema that the witnesses all refused to speak to the defense attorneys.
The judge made the only feasible ruling she could in the case. She forbade any of those witnesses from testifying in front of the jury. She could have disclared a mistrial--thus spending even more millions of dollars on a case already 4 years old. She could have ruled out the possibility of Moussaoui getting the death penalty--not a particularly politic move in the current emotional climate . . . though my personal belief, as previously expressed in this blog, is that life in prison without parole would be far more punishing to him than would his own death, which would make him a martyr to his "glorious cause."
[I do dearly wish the families of the victims of 9/11 could recognize that. They all seem hell-bent on Moussaoui getting the death penalty, which is exactly what he wants. Moussaoui's death would not well-serve the memories of those who died on 9/11, despite what their relatives say they think.--Ed]
As a matter of fact, however, Judge Brinkema has taken the death penalty off the table, by making it nearly impossible for the prosecution to prove the FAA could have stopped the events of 9/11 if Moussaoui had not lied. If none of the FAA witnesses can testify, none can offer testimony supporting that contention, which is the keystone to the argument for imposing the death penalty in the first place.
Maybe Judge Brinkema thinks as I do about Moussaoui's punishment. Actually, I hope not. The judge shouldn't be thinking about that at all. She should be thinking about how to get this trial to its conclusion with as little additional time and money wasted as possible. And that seems to be a reasonable interpretation of what she's doing.
I can't wait to find out how the government's lawyers screw up next. If they did what they did out of ignorance, the quality of legal education in this country has certainly plummeted. If they did what they did out of a win-at-all-costs mentality, they have no business being prosceutors. If they did what they did out of conviction that Moussaoui shouldn't get the death penalty, then even Machiavelli should tip his hat to them. It's not too many people who are willing to sabotage their own public standing in the service of a greater good (which is having Moussaoui forgotten but not gone).
2 comments:
The problem is that the current Imperium is so used to cheating, lying, or otherwise going around "the rules" that it doesn't know how not to screw up a case.
I cannot disagree. When the people at the very top do whatever the heck they want, why should any of their hirelings follow the rules, either? Still, I'd like to hope that in this case, what happened was "an accident on purpose," and that the prosecutor involved realized that life without parole would be a much worse punishment to Moussaoui than his death would be--to him--so this was the way to take the death penalty off the table without offending the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks. Or am I giving them too much credit for intelligence?
Post a Comment