Skip to comments.Closing Arguments Set for Terror Trial
Posted on 12/29/2004 7:35:51 AM PST by Max Combined
NEW YORK - After nearly six months of testimony, closing arguments were set to begin Wednesday in the trial of civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart and her two co-defendants, all of whom were members of a legal team that represented imprisoned Egyptian Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman in the 1990s.
The defendants, accused of helping a convicted terrorist communicate deadly messages to overseas followers, spent several weeks on the witness stand testifying in their own defense, in a risky move. The testimony is likely to figure prominently in the closing arguments and could influence the eventual verdict in the first major terrorism trial in Manhattan since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Stewart and her co-defendants, U.S. postal worker Ahmed Abdel Sattar and Arabic translator Mohamed Yousry, testified they obeyed the law in the work they did for Abdel-Rahman.
But prosecutors say the trio broke special prison rules imposed on the blind cleric to cut him off from terrorist followers after his 1995 conviction for conspiring to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (news - web sites) and blow up New York landmarks.
Prosecutors also say Sattar brazenly used his telephone and fax machine to conspire with members of an Egyptian terrorist group to kidnap and kill people overseas. They say Stewart and Yousry conspired to provide material support to terrorists.
Government lawyers declined to comment for this story.
Kenneth A. Paul, a lawyer for Sattar, agreed it was very rare for all defendants in one case to testify. But it was necessary, he said, because prosecutors tried to infer guilt through evidence showing communications between Sattar and suspected terrorists in other countries.
"I think that's unfair for any jury to base a decision on," he said. "I think he had to testify. He wanted to testify. ... Hopefully, the jury will evaluate it fairly."
Lawyers not involved in the case said the defendants skirted a dangerous line: They were able to tell their stories directly, but they also exposed themselves to cross-examination that could leave jurors questioning their credibility.
"It's risky because you're changing the quotient from testing the government's case to the defendant," said one lawyer, Gerald Lefcourt. "It becomes the defendant's credibility instead of the quality of the government's evidence."
At stake in the terrorist trial are potentially long prison sentences up to life in prison for Sattar and up to 20 years in prison for Stewart and Yousry.
In their testimony, the defendants each maintained they wanted no part in terrorism and stayed within legal boundaries.
Stewart said she felt an ethical obligation as a lawyer to keep the sheik's name and views relevant worldwide so he might someday be transferred to Egyptian prisons, where he would be watched by prison officers who know his language and traditions.
Yousry conceded on the stand that he was not immediately forthcoming with FBI (news - web sites) agents who interviewed him after the 2001 terrorist attacks, but said he was worried about the "climate in the country" and how he would be viewed for his work for the sheik.
The case was expected to go to the jury next week.
What a liar!
Execute them; end of problem.
Sounds good to me. I had the opportunity to observe some of the players in this case at an interpreters conference I attended a couple of years ago. They are raving leftist, pro-Islamist America haters, and I'm sure they did all they could for their beloved lunatic sheik.
My nomination for oxymoronic statement of the day!