Tampa Bay Coalition for Justice and Peace

October 28, 2005

I. Statement by Tampa Group: 3 Concerns about the Trial
II.The Latest on Dr. Al-Arian’s case (news reports)

I. Trial of Sami Al-Arian –
Statement by Tampa Bay Friends of Human Rights

This statement highlights three examples of a pattern of decisions
that could set dangerous precedents for future trials in the United
States. The trial of Sami Al Arian and three co defendants is now in
its fifth month. The statement was read on Oct. 25, 2005, by Pastor
Warren Clark, First United Church (UCC) of Tampa, at the press
conference held by the Tampa Bay Friends of Human Rights in front of
the Federal Courthouse in Tampa, Florida.

At the beginning of this trial, the Tampa Bay Friends of Human
Rights stood here and said, “Everyone deserves a fair trail.” Now a
pattern of decisions raises questions about this trial’s fairness.
This is a landmark case, and precedents can be set that will be used
in future trials.

Today we highlight three concerns:

1). Change of venue. There had been a decade long pattern of highly
charged newspaper stories about one of the defendants in this trial.
Surveys conducted before the trial indicated it would be very
difficult to select a jury where all the members would be free of
pre-judgments. Surveys of other cities in the South East indicated
much lower levels of pre-trial judgment by potential jurors. In the
future, this trial may be used as precedent for lowered standards on
legitimate motions for change of venue.

2). Continuance of a juror who was seeking to influence other jurors
to pre-judge this trial. It took a lot of courage for two jurors to
speak up and ask the Judge Moody to remind jurors that they are not
to discuss the trial among themselves. They said that one juror was
doing this repeatedly, seeking to influence other jurors. This is
precisely why there was a motion for change of venue. Yet even after
this was brought out into the open, this juror continues to sit on
this trial. This is happening when there are a number of alternate
jurors.

3). Guilt by web site association. The McCarthy Era was dangerous to
our basic freedoms because of guilt by association. Now in the age
of the internet, this is being taken to a new level. Here’s what’s
at stake: . If you click on a web site, anything on that web site
that could be damaging to you in a trial can be used against you.
Not only that, information on any other linked web site can also be
used against you, even if you never went to those sites. But there
is more: If you are a co-defendant, as in this current trial, and
one of the other defendants clicked on a web site, then that
information can also be used against you! If this becomes admissible
in American courts the potential for high-tech McCarthiasm is real.
We will enter an age of inquisition by web site association.

WE held up a goal at the beginning of this trial – that all of us
would be able to say, no matter the outcome, that this was indeed a
fair trial. These three concerns signal a pattern of decisions that
put that goal at risk. The last thing this community needs is to be
divided about the justice of the outcome of this trial.

As religious leaders we stand before this federal court house
lifting up a vision for a better country based on the rule of laws
fairly enacted. It is precisely in controversial cases like this
that our system is tested. The rule of law is central to the
religions that sprang from God’s covenant with Abraham and Moses.
The prophet Amos spoke God’s word to us for all time: “Let justice
roll on like a river, and righteousness like a never-failing
stream.” (Amos 5:24) We are here because we want that mighty river
of justice and fairness in our American tradition to remain strong.

II. St. Petersburg Times, October 28, 2005

5-month prosecution, 8 words for defense
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/10/28/Hillsborough/5_month_prosecution__.
shtml

Sami Al-Arian’s defense rests after calling no witnesses in his
terror trial.

By MEG LAUGHLIN

TAMPA – As the prosecution rested Thursday in the trial of Sami Al-
Arian, his attorney, Bill Moffitt, stood up to begin the defense.

Or so those in the courtroom thought.

Moffitt stunned the room: “On behalf of Dr. Al-Arian, the defense
rests.”

Prosecutors quietly voiced surprise. Journalists rushed out to file
stories. After five months of prosecutorial evidence, there would be
no defense witnesses, no testimony for Al-Arian.

During a break, Moffitt explained: “Because there is a document
called the U.S. Constitution – unless we’re about to repeal it – it
protects Dr. Al-Arian’s right to speak, and the government has not
proven that Dr. Al-Arian has done anything but speak. … The fact
that Dr. Al-Arian is a Palestinian deprives him of no civil rights.”

Later, Moffitt’s hand was strengthened by a decision from the
presiding judge about what the jury would be told about rights of
free association.

A former USF professor, Al-Arian and co-defendants Sameeh Hammoudeh,
Hatem Fariz and Ghassan Ballut are accused of using Islamic
charities as fronts in a conspiracy to finance terrorist attacks by
Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The organization has claimed
responsibility for killing hundreds of people in Israel and the
occupied territories.

Two of the co-defendants, Hammoudeh and Fariz, plan to put on
witnesses in defense next week. That is expected to take about two
weeks.

“It will be our job to humanize the defendants for the jury,” said
Kevin Beck, one of Fariz’s three attorneys.

Attorneys reacting to the defense team’s decision agreed it was a
good call. Several former federal prosecutors, turned defense
attorneys, said that sometimes the best defense is established
through government witnesses.

“The defense has already been established during cross-examination,”
said Tampa attorney John Fitzgibbons.

“That can be a very good defense strategy,” said Miami defense
attorney Neal Sonnett. “The burden is the government’s and the
burden never shifts.”

Sometimes a defense lawyer can make all the points he needs while
the prosecution is putting on its case, he said. “Cross-examination
can sometimes be more enlightening than direct examination.”

And so, with the exception of closing argument, no words will be
offered in Al-Arian’s defense, except for jury instructions.

At the end of the day Thursday, U.S. District Judge James S. Moody
Jr. agreed with Al-Arian’s defense attorneys that a paragraph,
crucial to their reliance on the First Amendment, should be included
in the general jury instructions.

It deals with the most serious charges against Al-Arian – that he
conspired to provide material support for the violent activities of
Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Israel and the occupied territories.

The judge said jurors would be told they could decide it is not a
crime to participate in the legal activities of an organization such
as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, even if that organization carries
out criminal activities.

This explanation is of vital importance to Al-Arian’s defense
because his attorneys have repeatedly said that he aided the legal
activities, the charitable and political work of Palestinian Islamic
Jihad, not the violent work.

Prosecutor Cherie Krigsman argued that “this exquisite division of
labor” in the Palestinian group, which defense attorneys keep
pointing out, is a ruse.

She said it didn’t matter if defendants supported the charitable or
political arm of the group because “the PIJ had murder as its
primary goal.”

Krigsman also said that even if defendants supported Palestinian
Islamic Jihad charities they were still guilty of criminal activity
because the charities “were a way of winning the hearts and minds of
the people as part of the PIJ terrorist strategy.”

Moffitt said that prosecutors were going to argue that association
with the the group and advocacy made Al-Arian guilty, because they
had nothing else.

“They can’t argue acts because they have no acts. All of his actions
were nonviolent,” said Moffitt.

Moody responded dryly: “We’re working on jury instructions, not your
closing argument.”

Eventually, though, the federal judge agreed to insert a paragraph
in the jury instructions that draws a line between the legal and
illegal activity of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

It begins: “Our law does not criminalize the mere membership in an
organization of a person who is in sympathy with the legitimate arm
of the organization.”

Linda Moreno, Al-Arian’s co-counsel, said later that this addition
was “very important” to Al-Arian’s defense because “it means the
government has to show more than Dr. Al-Arian’s association with
Palestinian Islamic Jihad.”

Moreno concluded, “This instruction goes to the heart of our theory
of defense.”
—-

EXCERPTS FROM OTHER NEWS REPORTS:

Defense attorney William Moffitt called the case against Sami Al-
Arian an “all-out assault on the First Amendment” right to free
speech, then rested.

Outside court, Moffitt said, “The government has not proven Dr. Al-
Arian has done anything but speak.”

-Associated Press, Oct. 27, 2005

Asked to explain his actions, defense attorney William Moffitt told
reporters: “There’s a document, a long document. It’s call the U.S.
Constitution. Unless the Constitution is repealed in this courtroom,
it protects Dr. Al-Arian for his speech. … The government has not
proven Dr. Al-Arian did anything but speak.”

Stetson Law School Professor Charles Rose thinks the defense
argument might work with the jury if it is done right. “The weak
part that has always existed in the government’s case is causation
between free speech and the attacks that occurred,” Rose said. The
case presents “an incredible constitutional issue,” he added. “To
what degree must our individual freedoms guaranteed by the
Constitution be curtailed … to guarantee our security.”

-Tampa Tribune, Oct. 28, 2005

—END.