Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

'Specific intent' is key to jury in Al-Arian trial

By MEG LAUGHLIN
Published September 28, 2005

TAMPA - "Specific intent" is emerging as the crucial question that will decide the guilt or innocence of Sami Al-Arian and three co-defendants, as their federal conspiracy case edges to a close.

The phrase came up repeatedly Tuesday, as attorneys for the defense and prosecution debated the instructions the judge should give jurors about the law at the trial's close. The jurors were not present for the discussion.

Defense attorneys asked that written instructions to jurors tell them the government must prove defendants "specifically intended" to commit unlawful acts, on behalf of Palestinian Islamic Jihad - and did.

It is not enough, argued defense attorneys, for the government to show that defendants associated with the PIJ, which committed unlawful acts. The government must show that defendants specifically intended to help the PIJ commit violent acts.

U.S. District Judge James S. Moody Jr. agreed and explained it this way: "If you're a member (of the PIJ) you're not guilty. You have to show that you knew there'd be violence and you participated in the furtherance of it." The PIJ has claimed responsibility for more than 100 deaths in Israel and the occupied territories. Prosecutors allege that Al-Arian, a former University of South Florida professor, and co-defendants Sameeh Hammoudeh, Ghassan Ballut and Hatem Fariz worked through organizations in Tampa to help the group raise money to commit some of these killings. But defense attorneys say their clients worked for the charitable activities of the PIJ and, therefore, should not be convicted of crimes.

Moody made sure the government had some wiggle room to prove its case with circumstantial evidence when he included this sentence in the instructions: "This intent may be determined from all of the circumstances surrounding ... the support."

Then, he explained that prosecutors had to prove three things to get a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence:

--That defendants had knowledge of the PIJ's unlawful activities.

--What defendants' support of the PIJ was.

--The likelihood that the support could or would further the illegal activities of the PIJ.

Moody told lawyers that if one person gave a writing pen to the PIJ, he'd be okay. But if another gave a grenade, he wouldn't be.

Moody added this final caveat on specific intent: "You would have to show that defendants, knowing the unlawful purpose of the plan, willfully joined in it to further that unlawful activity."

[Last modified September 28, 2005, 02:30:38]