Abdel Hameed Shehadeh Trial: Lawyer Hopes To Exclude Jews From Jury In Terrorism Trial

[geek tragedy]

Source: Huffington Post

"Your Honor...as you know, I’m not wild about having Jews on the jury in this case," Cohn told a judge in February. "Given that there’s going to be inflammatory testimony about Jews and Zionism, I think it would be hard for Jews to cast aside any innate antipathy. The American Jewish community is heavily aligned with Israel and Zionism. Here is a guy who is a Muslim, who is opposed to those things."

Prosecutors argued that it would be unconstitutional to bar someone from serving on a jury due to their religion.



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/abdel-hameed-shehadeh-lawyer-exclude-jews-terrorist-trial_n_2852668.html

---

I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict the court will refuse to violate the constitution by excluding jurors of a particular race/ethnicity religion to accomodate a terrorism defendant who's engaged in hate speech against that particular race/ethnicity religion.

Is it possible to sanction an attorney requesting that a court blatantly violate the civil rights of prospective jurors?

[SpankMe]

1. His defense lawyer is named 'Cohn'. Isn't that Jewish?

Talk about your ironies...

[geek tragedy]

2. Apparently he is Jewish, but he has a very low opinion

of other Jews' ability to be open-minded and rational in a jury box (ironic considering that Jews are typically amongst the most rational, open-minded, and rational of any demographic groups.

[atreides1]

34. Could be...

He's doing what defense lawyers do and what they get paid for...defending his client. And it's a pretty good tactic if think about it...the judge will refuse and people will be selected as they usually are, but it's going to look good in any appeal process!

[The Stranger]

35. Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner.

[geek tragedy]

36. No, the law isn't even close on this point. nt

[JDPriestly]

3. Seems to me that the statistical odds that this

man will draw a jury with a Jewish person who loves Israel is likely than the odds that he will draw a jury with an Evangelical Christian who is more fanatically pro-Israel than any Jewish person in the US.

Do these people understand America at all?

I realize that there are fewer Evangelical Christians in New York than elsewhere, but then, the statistical odds are still higher I suspect.

Jews make up only 1.7% of our population. Evangelical Christians 26.3%. Christians in general are 78.4% with all Protestants at 51.3% among us. Muslims? At 0.6%, they number a third as many as Jews.

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

He will get a fair trial insofar as the religious affiliation of his jury is concerned.

Would a Jewish person trust a Muslim juror? A juror of Palestinian origin? They would have no choice. The attorney in this matter is setting himself up for an excuse for losing. That's my guess.
Catholics make up 23.9% of our population.

[geek tragedy]

6. Pretty sure that Jews outnumber Evangelical Christians in NYC.

My hunch is that this request may be coming from the client, who will be less than pleased to have Jews deciding his fate, due to his own biases.

[msanthrope]

4. There's no violation of the civil rights of jurors here, but there is

conduct that can be reported to a bar.

Then again, with a terrorist for a client I'd be more concerned about keeping him happy.

[geek tragedy]

8. Striking jurors due to race or religion is forbidden due to Equal Protection

Clause.

This 'terrorist' seems to be one of the chumps who's not dangerous because of his cheerful personality but rather because of his gross stupidity.

Sure, he'd like to inflict harm, but he was too incompetent to pose a serious threat. Which is not a legal defense, unfortunately for him.

[msanthrope]

10. But it is not a violation of 'their' civil rights. It is a violation of the defendant's, ironically.

And too incompetent is a viable defense, if done right.

[geek tragedy]

13. Actually, it is a violation of the excluded jurors' civil rights

in addition to violating the defendant's civil rights, where the prosecutors are the ones wrongfully excluding potential jurors.

In Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991), we held that a criminal defendant, regardless of his or her race, may object to a prosecutor's race-based exclusion of persons from the petit jury. Our conclusion rested on a two-part analysis. First, following our opinions in Batson and in Carter v. Jury Commission of Greene County, 396 U.S. 320 (1970), we made clear that a prosecutor's race-based peremptory challenge violates the equal protection rights of those excluded from jury service. 499 U.S., at 407 -409. Second, we relied on well-established rules of third-party standing to hold that a defendant may raise the excluded jurors' equal protection rights. Id., at 410 U.S. 415 .

Powers relied upon over a century of jurisprudence dedicated to the elimination of race prejudice within the jury selection process. See, e.g., Batson, supra, at 84; Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 203 -204 (1965); Carter, supra, at 329-330; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370, 386 (1881); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880). While these decisions were, for the most part, directed at discrimination by a prosecutor or other government officials in the context of criminal proceedings, we have not intimated that race discrimination is permissible in civil proceedings. See Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217, 220 -221 (1946). Indeed, [500 U.S. 614, 619] discrimination on the basis of race in selecting a jury in a civil proceeding harms the excluded juror no less than discrimination in a criminal trial. See id., at 220. In either case, race is the sole reason for denying the excluded venireperson the honor and privilege of participating in our system of justice.

(emphasis added)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=500&page=614

[msanthrope]

16. No--you are conflating peremptorys and cause strikes. Mr. Cohn is asking for cause--

he is asking for the court to recognize that those who identify with 'Zionism' would be unable to render a fair verdict, and should therefore be eliminated as a matter of cause. He is not asking for an exception to peremptories.

For example, on death penalty cases, I can strike you for cause if you admit that your religious beliefs preclude you from rendering the death penalty. This is not unconstitutional.

This is a strategy...he wants more particular questioning of the prospective jurors so he can get more cause strikes and therefore, save his peremptories.

[geek tragedy]

19. Categorically excluding Jews explicitly rather than sneakily

is still a violation of their equal protection rights.

Discrimination is discrimination.

The SCOTUS made it pretty clear:

discrimination on the basis of race in selecting a jury in a civil proceeding harms the excluded juror no less than discrimination in a criminal trial. See id., at 220. In either case, race is the sole reason for denying the excluded venireperson the honor and privilege of participating in our system of justice.

Unless you can point me to case law where jurors may be subjected to racist discrimination so long as that racist discrimination is above board.

My response, were I the judge, would be to ask the parties to submit sanctions motions and refer Mr. Cohn to the disciplinary committee.

[msanthrope]

21. But that's not quite what's happening here. 'Zionism' is not a protected class.

If I exclude every single black person on a panel of jurors because every single black person told me they could not follow the law and give the death penalty to a person they had found guilty because of their religious upbringing or personal convictions, what I have done is not discriminatory.

Here, what this lawyer is looking to do is get some wiggle room--what he really wants is the magistrate judge to closely question the political leanings of all jurors, and to strike for cause those who have political leanings that are sympathetic to Zionism. Yes, he pretty much wants all Jews off the jury, but he's not going to get that. What he might get, though, is some cause strikes on those who identify as allied with 'Zionism.'

I'm not defending this....just telling you the strategy.

[geek tragedy]

23. Tipped his hand too much with the constant "Jews" references.

I agree that political leanings and questions of "could you judge someone who hated Israel and called for its destruction" are perfectly legit.

But, can't go much beyond that.

[msanthrope]

26. Not at all...he got exactly what he wanted. The story in all the Jewish dailies and

the NYPost. It's a nice way to poison the pool, and create pre-trial publicity cause strikes.

[geek tragedy]

29. It's still a fairly bigoted assumption that Jews would be less

fair and rational re: the Taliban/AQ than non-Jews.

Probably not a very helpful one to his case. I'd be more worried about Frankie from Staten Island than I would about Irving from the Upper West Side.

[msanthrope]

31. Oh, I'm not saying it's smart trial strategy. nt

[geek tragedy]

33. +1 nt

[John2]

5. I think the only way the lawyer

can strike a juror is if he or she thinks that person would use religion and not follow the law. Lawyers and prosecutors have a right to strike certain jurors if they thought that juror would be prejudicial to their case and not follow the law. Defendants are supposed to get a fair trial. Jurors are suppose to answer questions also, in order to sit on a case.

[geek tragedy]

7. They only get so many "blank check" juror strikes.

Otherwise, they have to justify. And, if a Jewish juror says "of course, I can put my religion aside and stick to the facts" he can't strike citing "well, they're probably lying and can't be rational about a guy who said bad things about Jews."

[Benton D Struckcheon]

9. They get two or three they can let go without having to say why...

...if it's anything like over here in Joisey. I was chosen and then a lawyer for one side let me go a few years ago when I had been called for jury duty. So he'll get to do that, and then he'll get stuck with the rest. NYC has a pretty large Jewish population.
But there are a surprising number of Evangelicals around here. So he may wind up out of the frying pan and into the fire anyway.

[John2]

12. NYC is a pretty Liberal

City and diverse. I find it would be hard to stack a Jury with one ethnicity or religion. I've been on both sides. The one in which I was a defendent, I won the case with the jury. The one in which I was chosen to be on a Jury, I had to fill out a questionaire presented by the prosecution and defense. On the case that I was the defendant, my lawyer decided who to strike in consultation with me. They have the right to do so. I doubt the prosecution would find a Jury full of one ethnicity or religion or the Defense can call for a change of venue on those grounds.

[The Wizard]

11. Maybe he just

wants to check foreskins.

[Nye Bevan]

14. Wouldn't this be like excluding women from a jury for a rape trial? (nt)

[geek tragedy]

15. Or blacks from lynching trials in the Jim Crow south.

Etc etc etc.

Plainly unconstitutional.

[msanthrope]

17. Yes and no. I can strike a woman for cause if she admits she cannot render a

fair verdict in a rape trial, or struck for cause if she admits that she thinks all cops lie, or if she thinks all accused rapists are guilty, or if her political or religious beliefs would compromise a fair verdict.

I can't get her struck (for cause) for just being a woman. The attorney described above is not trying to strike for mere 'jewishness' but rather for 'Zionism' which makes this a more complicated inquiry.

I don't agree with him, but I see where he is going with it.

[Nye Bevan]

18. I have no problem excluding people from the jury who say that all Muslims are terrorists.

Or people who admit that they hate Islam.

[msanthrope]

24. Well, what this guy wants is some pre-trial publicity and some poisoning of the jury pool.

He got that.

[geek tragedy]

20. He said "Jews"--repeatedly. He can ask people if they can fairly judge a trial

of a vehement anti-Zionist or even an anti-semite.

He can't ask "Bernstein--is that a Jewish name?"

Which is what he's asking to do.

"Your Honor...as you know, I’m not wild about having Jews on the jury in this case," Cohn told a judge in February. "Given that there’s going to be inflammatory testimony about Jews and Zionism, I think it would be hard for Jews to cast aside any innate antipathy. The American Jewish community is heavily aligned with Israel and Zionism. Here is a guy who is a Muslim, who is opposed to those things."

[msanthrope]

22. Sure he did. He also said lots about Zionism, and this is a pre-trial hearing.

Why do you think he wanted this to make the NY Post and all the Jewish dailies?

[geek tragedy]

25. Why? Not unheard of for lawyers to do anything to get themselves

attention.

[msanthrope]

27. But what he's done here is poison the pool, and given more cause strikes to himself

by putting a highly controversial statement in the press/Jewish press. That will create more cause strikes for him.

[geek tragedy]

32. The NY Post's readership is already poisoned against

any terrorism suspect with a Muslim/Arab name.

I guess if he wants to set his own career and reputation on fire in order to help this one random shitbag, that's his call, but in reality he's probably not going to help his client by getting rid of Jews in the first place. AQ and the Taliban hate the US/Americans/Christians just as much as they hate Israelis/Jews, a fact not lost on Catholics and Protestants here.

[John2]

28. If they don't follow the evidence

and let their religious beliefs or politics guide their judgment, then I would move to strike them as the defendant's lawyer. If the lawyer is truly of Jewish descent, then who would know better? Remember this is the defendant's own chosen lawyer who happens to be Jewish. And even though he is Jewish, the lawyer is defending him to the best of his ability.

I checked the Demographics of New York City. That is a very diverse City of 8 million people. The largest religion in New York City is Catholic. The African American population is larger than the Jewish and so is the Catholic. The largest group are Italians. They also have a significant Hispanic population as well as Chinese, Asians and Arabs. The Jury should reflect the jurisdiction.

[geek tragedy]

30. You can ask questions about their willingness to follow the evidence

and the law.

But, you can't presume that certain ethnic groups are less rational than others.

And no, the fact that his lawyer is Jewish gives him zero legit grounds for assuming that Jews are less rational than non-Jews.

[JVS]

37. How are his actions a crime against Jewish people in particular?

This guy is in trouble for joining the Taliban. If anything, the bulk of the Taliban's victims would be other Muslims.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. 'Jury without Jews' denied: Anti-Semitic request by Muslim rejected by judge

A "jury without Jews" denied request by a New York judge today is making headline news. According to a March 11 ABC top news report, an attorney representing a suspected Muslim terrorist made a request that is not only anti-Semitic; it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution regarding racism and civil rights.

Frederick Cohn, counsel representing Abdel Hameed Shehadeh, who is accused of lying about planned terror against Americans in Afghanistan, made the motion last month.

However, the "jury without Jews" request was denied.

more: http://www.examiner.com/article/jury-without-jews-denied-anti-semitic-request-by-muslim-rejected-by-judge