Comments on: Holy Land Foundation: Not Guilty Updated: Jury confusion Update: Mistrials declared

By: James

James — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:19:56 +0000

“I understand there’s no magical mystery check with ‘Hamas’ written on it, but over all the case was pretty weak,” said the juror, William Neal, 33, an art director from Dallas. “There really was nothing there for me, no concrete evidence.” Mr. Neal said the government should not retry the case

Apparently this “Art Director” has no concept of how money laundering works.

Can we get educated people without BDS on the next jury…

By: Connie

Connie — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:07:15 +0000

Anyone see Steve Emerson and Ollie North smack Alan Colmes around tonight? Steve told Alan that he was wasting time by repeating the same thing over and over and Alan said it was HIS show and Emerson was just a guest.

By: shooter

shooter — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:10:50 +0000

Please NO. PLEASE.
Dont let this country implode. C’mon now…please.
.
One guy slept thru the whole trial…do we wonder why?
.
The only one happy on here today is our Brit moslem, part time jihadi, Zane.
Zane of multiple aliases, banned from numerous conservative blogs around the world…Zane is happy. I dont wonder why.

By: Mojave Mark

Mojave Mark — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:14:42 +0000

The OJ jury rears its ugly head again. They’ll be utterly shocked, shocked I tell ya, when we get nuked.

By: Resolute

Resolute — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:36:09 +0000

“I thought they were not guilty across the board,” said the juror, William Neal, a 33-year-old art director from Dallas. The case “was strung together with macaroni noodles. There was so little evidence.”

I know nothing about the actual evidence, but this quote has me perplexed. Finding a reason to doubt the conclusions of the prosecutor is one thing, but how can you ever say there is no evidence in a trial that lasted 2 months? This makes no sense on it’s face.

The only explanation I have is that some on the jury decided they didnt want to listen to anything the “government” had to say.

By: docdave

docdave — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:13:37 +0000

Interesting that jurors in NYC, who have livd through real terrorism are more willing and able to convict terrorists than jurors in Dallas, Texas

.Especially since we Texans have the reputation for harsh sentences.

One possible explanation for the jury deadlock is that some of the dissenting jurors were pressured to support the majority decision. That is why individual jury members can be polled if requested by the prosecution or defense.

By: BadgerHawk

BadgerHawk — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:12:57 +0000

This story isn’t much of a comment starter, but it’s still very important. Thanks for keeping us updated.

By: Larraby

Larraby — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:30:37 +0000

People like Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times have been humanizing terrorist enablers for years. Kristof once described Al-Arian as a “rumpled, bespectacled professor”. When Al-Arian finally copped a plea and was deported, Kristof had nothing to say. But after a while, the constant drumbeat from people like Kristof and Anthony Lewis does take its toll. And there were movies like The Siege in which supposedly Muslim extremists turn out to gentle humanists while the FBI is treated like a bunch of stormtroopers. And now the movie Rendition portrays the CIA and FBI as Barbarians while the lone Muslim in the movie is a model of humanity. After a while people start to believe this nonsense. Interesting that jurors in NYC, who have livd through real terrorism are more willing and able to convict terrorists than jurors in Dallas, Texas.

By: Asher

Asher — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:18:51 +0000

Pretty much what I expected. It’s the way of the world today.

By: Militant Bibliophile

Militant Bibliophile — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:04:01 +0000

Frankly, I’ve been expecting a hung jury for some time now. Think about it: a full court press by the media “humanizing” terrorists for the last several years (and ramped up this year), memories of 9/11 continuing to fade, and the assurance that there is always one nut who will try to make some political statement about the “Bush regime” by voting with his rage. A mistrial gives me hope for the future, but raises some SERIOUS questions about that jury foreman (the nut, perhaps?). Time will tell.

By: profitsbeard

profitsbeard — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:55:27 +0000

Some phony baloney stuff going on, because jurors are supposed to know what they’re agreeing to before it’s presented to the court.

Should be interesting.

By: Kralizec

Kralizec — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:44:27 +0000

In a matter touching on war, one must decide whether it seems prudent or imprudent to let the matter remain as a civil proceeding has disposed it.

By: mram

mram — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:41:00 +0000

Maybe Hot Air’s next interview should be with Steven Emerson. I think it was the Investigative Project that first uncovered the whole scam years ago. I wonder what he thinks.

By: Connie

Connie — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:18:10 +0000

A couple of interesting posts on jury selection over at Jihad Watch here and here. IIRC, several potential jurors were dismissed at the beginning because they said they were afraid.

By: Larraby

Larraby — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:49:04 +0000

Interesting that in New York City, which is the bluest of blue, the 1993 WTC terrorists were convicted, the 1995 plotters, including the blind sheikh, were convicted and Lynn Stewart, the radical lawyer who represented the blind sheikh, was also convicted. In the nation’s biggest lawsuit against gun manufacturers, the gun manufacturers won. Yet in Dallas, supposedly conservative, the fanatical HAMAS suporters, managed a hung jury and came close to an acquittal. Maybe like in Florida where Al- Arian copped a plead after a hung jury, these guys will plead guilty and get deported. In any event, expec Geraldo Rivera to be jubilant and crowing today. From listening to him, he was the great radical trial lawyer in his day and so we can expect him to be smiling ear to ear today.

By: Judge Declares Mistrial : The American Pundit

Judge Declares Mistrial : The American Pundit — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:40:04 +0000

[...] does this all mean? The prosecution gets another shot to get a guilty verdict for them. As Bryan writes: The story is definitely not [...]

By: zane

zane — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:39:41 +0000

it seems that something changed between the verdict being sealed and it being read. How strange

By: zane

zane — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:38:26 +0000

what a cock up.

By: Theworldisnotenough

Theworldisnotenough — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:37:08 +0000

New trial with better prosecutors… Sheesh. Did these guys attend the Chris Darden School of Law?

By: zane

zane — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:33:36 +0000

11:29 a.m. A mistrial has been declared for five of six defendants in the case of a Muslim charity charged with financing Middle Eastern terrorists. Associated press 11:22 a.m. A mistrial on most defendants has been reached.

By: Theworldisnotenough

Theworldisnotenough — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:30:19 +0000

*sigh*

By: James

James — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:30:15 +0000

This feels very much like the day that OJ was found not guilty, only in this situation the case lasted 14 years and the jury’s verdict may have implications for an ongoing war.

So is the HLF going to go out and try to find the real terrorist supporters?

By: trubble

trubble — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:22:55 +0000

Wait, but I thought the Dems assured us that the criminal justice system was the model we should use to confront terrorism?

Well, certainly the acquittals will be trumpeted throughout skeptical Western European circles and even in the Muslim world as an example of our commitment to fairness and the rule of law, right? right?

By: zane

zane — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:20:11 +0000

it is very odd Bryan. Not heard of this type of thing before.

By: T J Green

T J Green — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:19:37 +0000

In a case where the focus is on foreign operations and foreign use of donations, conducting a trial before a “jury of peers” seems totally misguided.