Thursday, October 04, 2007

Juror Refuses To Deliberate In Holy Land Foundation Trial


There's been an odd and ominous twist in a major terrorism-financing trial, as apparently one juror is refusing to vote in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist-financing case.

The jury has been out nine full days in the case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, and when they were called back into the courtroom. the panel informed th ejudge that one of the members was refusing to vote.

U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish told panelists they had a duty to try to reach a decision, and ordered them to resume their deliberations and come to a verdict.

Possibilities? It would be interesting to find out if any of the jurors is a Muslim, and will de facto not vote to convict. If not that, those familiar with mafia trials know that a juror in an open court is notoriously easy to get to, with financial gain or the physical safety of the juror or his family being the usual motives.

Since a juror with those motives would normally simply cave in and vote for acquittal, either the person involved has a moral dilemma about voting this way in spite of the deal that was made, or has some doubts about whether the Muslim Brotherhood will honor the agreement... especially if the safety of a family member is involved.

The FBI needs to get involved in checking in to this, and we definitely need to handle these matters in special tribunals outside of the normal court system in the future.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would think the prosecution would have made sure that there were no Muslims on the jury in anticipation that something like this would happen.

Freedom Fighter said...

I think you have a higher opinion of our Federal prosecutors than I do...I hope you're right.

ff

louielouie said...

i would think that the defense attorney would have a field day during voir doire if that subject were brought up.