Defense Attorney Moves for Mistrial in Al-Arian Case
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
A defense attorney moved for a mistrial Wednesday as a federal jury completed its sixth day of deliberations in the Tampa, Fla., trial of a former college professor, Sami Al-Arian, who stands accused of leading an American branch of Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
One of Mr. Al-Arian’s co-defendants, Sameeh Hammoudeh, requested the mistrial after the court reported that a newspaper delivered to the jury last week contained results of an online poll in which 87% of respondents predicted that Mr. Al-Arian would be convicted. Stories pertaining to the trial are supposed to be removed from the copy of the Tampa Tribune given to jurors, but the unscientific, Web-based tally apparently slipped through.
“The jurors’ exposure to this poll, along with all of the other publicity to which the jurors were exposed whether before or during trial has cumulatively prejudiced the defendants’ right to a fair trial,” Mr. Hammoudeh’s attorney, Stephen Bernstein, wrote in a motion to the court. “The prejudice to the defendants is so evident that nothing short of a mistrial would be an appropriate remedy.”
Judge James Moody did not rule immediately on the mistrial motion. Jurors are to resume deliberations on Monday.
The jury began hearing evidence in June in the trial of Mr. Al-Arian, Mr. Hammoudeh, and two other men, Hatem Fariz and Ghassan Ballut. They are charged in a 51-count indictment with a variety of crimes, including conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to provide material support to a terrorist group, immigration fraud, and money laundering. All of the men could face life in prison if convicted on the most serious charges.
Prosecutors allege that Mr. Al-Arian, who taught computer engineering at the University of South Florida, worked covertly with the other defendants to aid Palestinian Islamic Jihad by providing logistical and financial support, and by disseminating information about the group’s suicide attacks in Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. Mr. Al-Arian is also accused of using a think tank he founded, the World & Islam Studies Enterprise, as a front group for the terror organization.
Defense lawyers contend that their clients are being persecuted for their political beliefs and public statements that should be protected by the First Amendment. No evidence was presented during the trial that Mr. Al-Arian or any of the other defendants had any advance knowledge of any terrorist attacks.
The jury in the complex case heard from more than 80 witnesses and saw and heard hundreds of exhibits, including hours of recordings of secretly wiretapped conversations involving the defendants. The jury instructions stretched to 95 pages, and a version of the indictment given to jurors is 158 pages in length.
Legal analysts and courtroom observers said the evidence was strongest against Mr. Al-Arian, who appeared to have been intimately involved with the governance of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, at least during the mid-1990s. The proof against the other defendants was less compelling. The evidence offered against Mr. Ballut was so weak that Judge Moody is still considering a motion to throw out the case against him.
Protracted jury deliberations could signal disagreements about the strength of the whole case or about the varying amount of evidence against each defendant.
The jury must also grapple with a bewildering series of changes in America’s terrorism-related laws over the past decade. Financial transactions involving Palestinian Islamic Jihad were not outlawed until 1995. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress gave prosecutors more legal tools against those suspected of conspiring with terrorists abroad.
In the motion calling for a mistrial, Mr. Bernstein cited a federal appeals court ruling in August that five men accused of being Cuban agents failed to get a fair trial because of anti-Castro sentiment in South Florida. The three judge panel said the trial should have been moved from Miami. The opinion was withdrawn last month after the full bench of the 11th Circuit Court of Ap peals agreed to rehear the case.
Judge Moody denied repeated requests by Mr. Al-Arian’s attorneys for a change of venue in the case.
The former professor has been the subject of intense public attention since 1994,when a PBS documentary suggested he had ties to Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The next year, a former research director at Mr. Al-Arian’s think tank, Ramadan Shallah, emerged in Syria as the top leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
In interviews at the time, Mr. Al-Arian downplayed his ties to Mr. Shallah and denied knowledge about the terrorist group. The ex-professor’s attorneys now acknowledge that some of his denials were false.