RSS
Home
Would you serve on the 9/11 jury?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Box Seat (Getty)
Announced Friday, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 co-defendants will face trial in a federal civilian court in New York City rather than a military court. Prosecutors will likely seek the death penalty for all five defendants.
Mohammed is commonly referred to as the 9/11 mastermind. He himself has confessed to being the mastermind. Interestingly enough, he is the uncle of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 (who was also tried and convicted in civilian court). Yousef is serving a life sentence in a federal prison.
Many believe the administration is mistaken to try these people in a civilian court rather than in military tribunals though the Washington Post notes that federal prosecutors in New York and Virginia have jockeyed for months with each other and with military prosecutors for the right to prosecute the high-value detainees.
Mohammed was being tried by a military commission --and would have faced the death penalty if convicted-- until the White House "requested a series of suspensions in those proceedings earlier this year, while officials decided on the best forum for prosecution.")
A lot of people are viewing this decision by Attorney General Eric Holder as some sort of special treatment for bad people, but leaving aside that issue for the policy police, what about the jury? Could you sit on such a jury? Imagine you are chosen as a juror in this case. You don't have a choice; if you're called, you have to serve. But if you could opt out, would you? Or would you want to serve? Are you at any risk in doing so?
Let's ask a tougher question: What if --despite Mohammed's confession-- what if the defense proves he wasn't involved, or that the other defendants weren't involved. Would you vote "Not guilty"? That's a verdict that could also be reached in a military tribunal (if the defense has real evidence proving that), so this isn't about which court to hold the trial, just the verdict.
Just suppose as a member of the jury you become convinced that the evidence against the defendants compels you to vote "not guilty." Would you vote not guilty? AND... would you face any retribution if that were to become known?
On the other hand, if you feel the evidence is clear and convincing and you vote to convict the defendants, do you get on some terrorists organization's list as a potential target?
It begs a question about the identity of the jurors.
We keep the identity of jurors private in many trials of a sensitive nature, or we sequester them. It's usually after the trial that identities are divulged. This might be one of those times where we keep their names private forever, perhaps under some sort of national security rule. It's a question that probably needs a lot more thought.
Should we keep the jury identities private forever? Would you sit on such a jury? Could you vote not to convict if the evidence was strong enough?
Keeping watch on those people - from 12 Angry Men
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
First lady Michelle Obama launched a federal anti-obesity program yesterday (the same day that Denny's made a free Grand Slam Breakfast available to …
It didn't take long for cynical predictions to come true about the proposed bi-partisan summit on health care. GOP leaders have threatened to …
