I woke up this morning today to the fact that five Florida men, mostly of minority and lower-income backgrounds, were sentenced to jail time. It's not that unusual an occurrence, in and of itself, it's that these men were tried three times, twice a mistrial was declared, until the prosecutor got his desired result: conviction.
I have to wonder what kind of justice system it is that would spend literally millions on trying 5 defendents on specious, evidence and keep trying them until they are convicted. That, to me, seems to pervert the course of justice. Two juries were unable to find these men guilty based on the evidence. That should have been enough.
More below the fold.
It's bad enough these men were captured, allegedly investing themselves in an Al-Qaeda terrorist plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and the FBI building in Miami with no resources of their own and not real connection to Al-Qaeda. It seems the main thrust behind it was the Bush Administration desperately needed a victory to prove their 'methods' in the 'war on terror' were working:
...the Bush administration, which had touted the case as an example of the government's ability to prevent terrorist attacks...
So, if you can't make the charges stick with two attempts, why not go for a third?
TRIAL 1: DECEMBER 2007
In December, after nine days of deliberation, a jury in Miami acquitted one defendant, Lyglenson Lemorin, of all charges and said it was deadlocked on the charges against the group's leader, Narseal Batiste, 33, who led a sect known as the Moorish Science Temple. It also deadocked on five others, leading Lenard to declare a mistrial.
TRIAL 2: APRIL 2008
The second trial, which ended Wednesday after 13 days of deliberation, proved equally fruitless. The prosecution had based its case on hundreds of FBI audio and video recordings, including one that showed the men pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda. The oath-taking ceremony was led by an FBI informant, known as Brother Mohammed, posing as an al-Qaeda operative.
Now, some context:
It is not unusual for prosecutors to retry a case once if a jury deadlocks. But a second retrial is exceedingly rare and is usually reserved for murder cases. A third trial on terrorism-related charges appears to be unprecedented and raises serious questions about whether prosecutors are more concerned with saving face than seeking justice.
The Justice Department should consider dropping or reducing charges brought against the others in exchange for their cooperation against Mr. Batiste. But the department should tread carefully. The more prosecutors appear to insist on repeat trials when they don't like the outcomes, the more the legitimacy of the system is eroded.
Is that what happened? Did they plead with the other men, to get the ringleader, the one who appeared to have any interest at all? No. They insisted on trying all six men again, for a third time.
TRIAL 3: MAY 2009
Of the six re-tried (the seventh was acquitted earlier), five were convicted. The jury acquitted the sixth defendent on all charges.
The suspected ringleader, Narseal Batiste, 35, was sentenced to 13½ years in prison plus 35 years of supervision after his release.
Another defendant, Patrick Abraham, 30, was sentenced to 9 years, 4-and-a-half months in prison, to be followed by 15 years of supervision. He was convicted of two counts involving supplying materials to terrorists and terror groups, and of conspiring to destroy buildings with explosives.
(despite the fact that:
Authorities have said the men did not have explosives or weapons and that their plans appeared "more aspirational than operational." The investigation began after an Arabic speaker contacted authorities and said Batiste approached him about waging "jihad" in the United States.
So, no weapons. Hmm. How about an informant?
Investigators then planted among the group an undercover informant, who claimed to be an al Qaeda member who helped plan the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. A federal raid on the group's Liberty City warehouse in 2006 revealed a receipt for purchase of a gun, as well as ammunition, marijuana, two credit cards, 10 euros, three machetes, two swords, an ax, uniforms and a flight suit
.
One gun. Some pot. Three machetes. Two swords. An ax. Uniforms. A flight suit.
Hmm. Exactly how were they going to blow up the FBI building and the Sears Tower with those? I'm not saying that having three machetes isn't suspicious. Or even two swords, or an ax (though most of those can be used for other purposes) but what they were charged with is as follows:
They were charged with conspiracy to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and the FBI building in Miami, Florida.
http://www.time.com/...
Stanley Grant Phanor, 34, Burson Augustin, 24, and Rotschild Augustine, 26, were convicted of supplying materials to terrorists but acquitted of the other charges.
Phanor got eight years, Augustin got six and Augustine seven. All will be supervised for 10 to 15 years after release.
The sixth defendant, Naudimer Herrera, 25, was acquitted on all four counts.
However, acquittal doesn't always mean immediate release:
http://mlyon01.wordpress.com/...
Lemorin has been denied bond, languishing in custody since his arrest 35 months ago, though four presumably more culpable defendants were allowed to post bail while awaiting their second and third trials. He was inside a high-security lockup near Jacksonville on Tuesday when a jury finally convicted five of the six remaining defendants for . . . I don’t know. Feigning terrorism?
"I think it shows how tarnished the government's credibility is here in our community," said Bruce J. Winick, a professor at the University of Miami law school. "I think this was a case of premature prosecution. They should have surveilled more carefully and for longer to see if this plot was really going anywhere or if it was simply a bunch of poor unfortunates rising to the flavorful bait of someone who's spreading around $50,000."
Oath-taking to a terrorist organization is relevant evidence, but in and of itself, it is an act protected by the First Amendment, said Winick, explaining that the jury had to decide if the defendants would have come up with such a plot on their own. "It was like a little movie put together by a government informant."
So, now there are men who are going to prison, or remain in prison unfairly, not for anything dangerous that they actually did, but because an FBI informant help build a tenuous case against them (a case that two juries could not determine was solid enough to engender a conviction), based on flimsy evidence, no resources and no evidence of explosives.
Was justice served? Or was this a malicious prosecution to justify the Bush Administration's behavior post 9/11?
Would anyone miss seven minority men all that much?
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/...
http://www.mahalo.com/...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://miami.indymedia.org/...
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/...