3/18/07 (FL):
Padilla Case - Judge Allows Expert Testimony
|
|
A federal judge has allowed expert testimony in the upcoming Jose Padilla terrorism trial, but warned that experts should not be allowed to draw conclusions of guilt or innocence for jurors.
U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke also denied a motion by one of Padilla's co-defendants, Adham Amin Hassoun, that defense lawyers claim could have helped them prove that Hassoun was not responsible for Padilla's alleged recruitment into al-Qaida.
With the trial scheduled in one month, the judge held a day long hearing to dispose of a half-dozen of the long list of pre-trial motions still pending in the case.
Padilla, Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi are charged with being part of a North American terror support cell that provided money, material and fighters to Islamic extremist groups around the world.
Padilla, a 36-year-old U.S. citizen and former Chicago gang member, initially was accused of involvement in an al-Qaida plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" inside the U.S. when he was arrested in 2002. He was declared an enemy combatant by President Bush and sent to the brig, where he remained while a legal fight raged over the president's wartime detention powers.
Padilla was added to the Miami terrorism support case in late 2005, just before the U.S. Supreme Court was to consider the presidential detention issue. The "dirty bomb" allegation does not appear in the Miami criminal indictment.
The trial is scheduled to begin April 16 and could last six months.
Expert witnesses are of unusual importance in this case. Defense lawyers want to show, for example, that "mujahideen" fighters are not necessarily terrorists but could be legitimate Muslim combatants in such places as Chechnya and Bosnia.
Hassoun attorney Jeanne Baker said the federal charges "link mujahideen with murder. They make the presumption that it's murder. And it's an inaccurate perception."
Baker was replying to a motion by prosecutors to prevent five proposed defense experts from testifying, in part because defense lawyers didn't clearly outline what opinions they might render. And defense lawyers objected to two government experts, contending that they intend to directly accuse of defendants of involvement in al-Qaida and other extremist groups.
Cooke decided that each side could have its experts but they could not conclude for jurors that the three defendants are guilty.
© X-Pro 2007
|
|
