Mistrial in Case of Muslim Charity Accused of Funding Terror After Verdict Confusion

fox news ^ | 10/22/2007 | ap

[tobyhill]

DALLAS — A mistrial has been declared for five of six defendants in the case of a Muslim charity charged with financing Middle Eastern terrorists.

The read verdict said the jurors found three leaders of a group that was once America's largest Muslim charity not guilty of funneling illegal aid to terrorists, but the panel was sent back to deliberate on the other defendants after three jurors said the verdicts read in court were wrong.

Because of the confusion, the judge did not officially accept those verdicts, which aquitted charity fundraiser Mufid Abdulqader on all counts and two others on most counts: former chairman Mohammed El-Mezain Mohammed El-Mezain and the group's New Jersey representative, Abdulrahman Odeh.

The jurors had been deliberating again on charges against Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development as well as former chief executive Shukri Abu Baker and former chairman Ghassan Elashi.

When jurors came into the courtroom earlier Monday, the judge read the verdicts, but three jurors said those findings were not correct. Fish sent them back to resolve the differences.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

WTF?

Over.

[tobyhill]

The foreperson screwed this whole thing up and tried to cram through a not guilty verdict even though she knew the jury was hung.

[tobyhill]

“You are at the end of your service in this case,” presiding Judge A. Joe Fish told the jurors in a Dallas court before declaring a mistrial on the vast majority of the nearly 200 counts applying to the six accused, including the Holy Land Foundation itself.”

The Foreperson screwed this thing up and the judge has got to be POed.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

Yeah, it appears that the fix was in.

[tobyhill]

It looks like at least 3 jurors didn’t fall for the fix and got the mistrial instead of being bamboozled.

[Publius6961]

The foreperson screwed this whole thing up and tried to cram through a not guilty verdict even though she knew the jury was hung.

Do we happen to know the name of this "foreperson"?

[Publius6961]

The Foreperson screwed this thing up and the judge has got to be POed.

Calling all Freeper attorneys!
What does a "mistrial" mean? I have never been quite clear on that.
Does the nature of the court and the case have an influence on its definition?

[tobyhill]

My bet is it’s a Dallas ghetto ho.

[tobyhill]

The judge had no choice after the foreperson falsely claimed to have not guilty verdicts and having it read in court.

[Grendel9]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071022163149.acsu6cp7&show_article=1&catnum=0&image=large

[Publius6961]

The judge had no choice after the foreperson falsely claimed to have not guilty verdicts and having it read in court.

Thanks for the input; I actually understood that part. The mystery for me continues to be the consequences of the legal concept: mistrial...

[shankbear]

In a mistrial it is as if the trial had never happened. The case can be retried before another jury. There may be a problem here since the verdict was announced. The question is that since jeopardy had attached and the verdict of acquittal was announced, would a retrial constitute double jeopardy?

Whether the judge has to accept or approve the verdict may be a question also.

[VOA]

The foreperson screwed this whole thing up and tried to cram through
a not guilty verdict even though she knew the jury was hung.

There are some liberal Texas nutburgers. I met some in California.
They seemed to be SHOCKED, SHOCKED, I TELL YOU! when I guessed
they'd lived in Dallas or Austin.

I just hope she's foolish enough to do on-camera interviews
with Katie Couric, Larry King etc.

And then learns a bit more about "Don't Mess With Texas".

[VOA]

The judge had no choice after the foreperson falsely claimed to
have not guilty verdicts and having it read in court.

I'm no lawyer...
but I hope the local DA has NO DISCRETION and MUST indict, try and
convict this peckerwood for "obstruction of justice".

And send her to jail for a multi-year term.
And DECADES of probation.

Yeah, I know that's a fantastic dream...

[tacticalogic]

In a mistrial it is as if the trial had never happened. The case can be retried before another jury. There may be a problem here since the verdict was announced. The question is that since jeopardy had attached and the verdict of acquittal was announced, would a retrial constitute double jeopardy?

There can be no double jeopardy if the first trial never happened.

[calex59]

There can be no double jeopardy if the first trial never happened.

Not only that, if the verdict wasn't approved by all of the jury then the verdict doesn't count regardless of whether it was read or not. In other words, mistrial means just that. I read another news article earlier that was trying to make it sound as if the one person was actually found not guilty but the rest of the defendants were involved in the mistrial. This simply is not true. They(the government)now have the option of a new trial or no trial at all. I would guess they will re-try them. BTW, in some states the jurors are polled individually just in case someone tries an end run like this foreperson tried.