To: RELIGION EDITORS
Contact: Ibrahim Hooper, National Communications Director, +1-202-488-8787, or +1-202-744-7726, ihooper at cair.com, Rabiah Ahmed, Communications Coordinator, +1-202-488-8787, or +1-202-439-1441, rahmed at cair.com, or Amina Rubin, Communications Coordinator, +1-202-488-8787, arubin at cair.com, all of CAIR
Not a single guilty verdict returned by Texas jury on 197 charges
WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called today's declaration of a mistrial in the case against the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation (HLF) Muslim charity a "stunning defeat" for the prosecution.
CAIR also said the absence of a single guilty verdict on 197 charges brought by the prosecution in the terror financing trial will help reinforce the Muslim community's faith in America's system of justice.
The jury initially brought back "not guilty" verdicts on the government's most serious charges of material support for terrorism against the five HLF officials. However, jurors were deadlocked on other charges, forcing the judge to declare the mistrial.
SEE: Judge Declares Mistrial in Holy Land Foundation Case (Dallas Morning News) http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/102207dnmetholyland.1878fd716.html
SEE ALSO: HLF Juror Says 'There Was So Little Evidence' (AP) http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8SEFSUO0.html
View the jury's verdict for one of the defendants at: http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/pdf/info_center/hlf_ver.pdf
In a statement reacting to the declaration of a mistrial, CAIR Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed applauded the efforts of the jury.
Ahmed's statement said in part:
"After 19 days of deliberation, the jurors did not return even a single guilty verdict on any of the almost 200 charges against these men, whose only 'crime' was providing food, clothing and shelter to Palestinian women and children. It seems clear that the majority of the jury agreed with many observers of the trial who believe the charges were built on fear, not facts. This is a stunning defeat for prosecutors and a victory for America's legal system.
"The American Muslim community will continue to fight for justice and for the right to help those who are in need, whether in this nation or overseas. Today's developments in the HLF case send the message that a hard-working jury of ordinary Americans will weigh the facts objectively and will resist pressure to convict based on guilt by association. Charitable giving should be honored, not criminalized."
Ahmed added that this is just the latest defeat for government prosecutors in such cases. Similar conspiracy charges brought in Illinois and Florida found little traction with jurors.
CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 33 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper at cair.com; CAIR Communications Coordinator Rabiah Ahmed, 202-488-8787 or 202-439-1441, E-Mail: rahmed at cair.com; CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin, 202-488-8787, E-Mail: arubin at cair.com
SOURCE CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations
<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/us/22cnd-holyland.html> October 22, 2007 No Convictions in Trial Against Muslim Charity By LESLIE EATON
DALLAS, Oct. 22 —A federal jury today failed to convict any of the former leaders of a Muslim charity who were charged with financing Middle Eastern terrorists, and the judge declared a mistrial on almost all of the charges.
The case, involving the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, is the government's largest and most complex legal effort to shut down what it contends is American financing for terrorist organizations in the Middle East. Even though the investigation began more than a decade ago, the trial was being closely watched by legal experts who saw it as test of anti-terrorism laws and tactics adopted by the government after the Sept. 11 attacks, including laws that allow it to freeze assets of groups it says are aiding terrorist organizations.
David D. Cole, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, said the jury's verdict called into question the government's tactics of using secret evidence to freeze a charity's assets. When, at trial, "they have to put their evidence on the table, they can't convict anyone of anything," he said. "It suggests the government is really pushing beyond where the law justifies them going." Prosecutors were trying to show that the charity, based in a Dallas suburb, was not simply trying to help poor Palestinians, as Holy Land officials said, but was in fact an arm of the radical Islamic group Hamas; the 36 charges included conspiracy, money laundering and providing financial support to a foreign terrorist organization.
The case involved more than a decade of investigation, almost two months of testimony — including some from Israeli intelligence agents using pseudonyms — and mounds of documents, wiretap transcripts and even videotapes dug up in a backyard in Virginia.
But after more than 19 days of deliberations, the jury acquitted one of the five individual defendants of all but one charge, on which it deadlocked. Most jury members also appeared ready to acquit two other defendants of most charges, and failed to reach a verdict on the two principal organizers and on the foundation itself, which had been the largest Muslim charity in the United States until the government froze its assets in late 2001.
The decision today is "a stunning setback for the government, there's no other way of looking at it," said Matthew D. Orwig, a partner at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal here who was, until recently, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas.
"This is a message, a two-by-four in the middle of the forehead," Mr. Orwig said. "If this doesn't get their attention, they are just in complete denial," he said of Justice Department officials.
The outcome of the trial emerged during a morning of confusion for jurors and those on both sides of the case, after Chief Judge A. Joe Fish read the verdict, which the jury had reached on Oct. 18 but which had been sealed because the judge was out of town.
In it, the jury said it failed to reach a decision on any of the charges against the charity and two of its main organizers, but acquitted three defendants on almost all counts.
But in an unusual development, when the judge polled the jurors, three members said that verdict did not represent their views. He sent them off deliberate again; after about 40 minutes, they returned and said they could not continue.
In the end, one defendant, Mohammed el-Mezain, was acquitted all on charges but one involving conspiracy, on which the jury failed to reach a verdict.
The five individual defendants in the case, all former officials of or volunteers for the foundation, faced as many as 36 counts apiece. Between the lengthy jury instructions and the verdict form, the packet given to the jurors "looks like the phone book for a small city," the judge had said.
In the course of the trial, prosecutors said that the Holy Land Foundation functioned as an arm of Hamas, the radical Palestinian group that has sponsored suicide bombings in Israel. The government did not allege that the foundation's money paid directly for attacks, but rather that the money — more than $12 million — which had been sent to charities controlled by Hamas, had increased public support for Hamas and had helped it recruit terrorists and spread its ideology.
Lawyers for the defendants told the jury that their clients did not support terrorism; rather, the defense said, they were humanitarians trying to lessen suffering among impoverished Palestinians. Though their clients might have expressed support for Hamas, the defense argued, they did so before the United States government designated Hamas as a terrorist organization in 1995.
One defendant, Mufid Abdulqader, is the half-brother of Khalid Mishal, a Hamas leader who has been designated as a terrorist by the United States government. Another Hamas official and designated terrorist, Mousa abu Marzook, is married to a cousin of the former chairman of Holy Land, Ghassan Elashi, a defendant in the case; last year, Mr. Elashi was sentenced to almost seven years in prison for having financial dealings with Mr. Marzook and for violating export laws.
The jury has been out since Sept. 19, although their deliberations were slowed by the replacement of one juror on Sept. 26. Judge Fish did not reveal why he replaced the juror with an alternate, nor did he disclose the contents of several early notes the jury sent him.
On Oct. 3, the jury sent the judge another note indicating that one panel member was refusing to vote; Judge Fish read them what is known as an Allen charge, stressing their responsibility to try to reach a verdict.
The case has been highly controversial among many Muslim Americans, who believe that their charitable efforts, required by their religion, are being unfairly singled out. During the trial, protesters gathered across the street from the federal courthouse here, holding signs with slogans like, "Prosecuting Islamic Charities is a Homeland Insecurity."
"It's an extremely expansive statute to begin with, and the prosecution's interpretation in this case is the most expansive I've seen yet," David D. Cole, an expert on constitutional law at Georgetown University in Washington, said before the mistrial was declared.
Maria Newman contributed reporting from New York.
-- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/>