An article in the New York Times raises the question as to whether the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed On charges of masterminding the 9/11 attack on the Word Trade Center and on United Flight 93 will be tried in New York or whether the venue will be changed to another city.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendent in a criminal case , among other rights, the right to an” impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” But the right to venue can be waived. In such cases the defendant must make a motion and the court must find that a change of venue is necessary to guarantee a fair trial.

Thus, the first question is whether Khalid Shaikh Mohammed will request a change of venue. Of course this assumes that there will be a trial. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has stated that he wants to plead guilty. In which there will be no need for a trial or to consider the venue question.

But assuming that he does not plead guilty Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his attorney will have to decide whether to request a change of venue. The question is not as easy as it might seem. At first glance one would want to get out of New York City as fast as possible. Many New Yorkers had friends and relatives killed on 9/11 and may be quite biased. Picking a jury that will give Mohammed a fair trial may be a near impossible task. But New York is a diverse community known for not imposing the death sentence. Thus if the goal is to save his life his defense team may decide not to move for a change of venue.

But even if the defense decides to consider a change in venue they may find that it is inappropriate. They will be required to hire experts to see if Mohammed is more likely to get a fair trial in each city. The expert will poll individuals in New York City and several other cities to determine the liklihood of getting a fair trial in New York and other chosen cities. In previous terrorist trials polls have have found that it is not the advantage of the alleged terrorist. In the case of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman the defense planned to request a change of venue but after the polling was done they changed their mind since there did not seem to be a clear advantage to a change of venue. The 9/11 attack is known nationwide and it may be impossible a better jury outside of New York City. While the attack on the World Trade Center occurred in New York it resulted in nationwide consequences and a nationwide stigma against anyone who may have been connected to the attack.

This is the first in a series of posts on United States v. Sattar (Stewart; Yousry). Lynne Stewart is a well known New York City criminal defense attorney. She represented Sheikh Omar Ahmad Ali Abdel Rahman who was charged with planning the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Rahman was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. While in prison he was considered a high security risk and was subject to “Special Administrative Measures” (SAMs) to prevent him from communicated with outside terrorist organizations. Stewart, along with Mohammed Yousry, and Abdel Sattar were convicted of violating the SAMs by holding a press conference in which Steward sent a message to the Sheik’s supporters in Egypt.

Tuesday the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the defendant’s appeal. The Court upheld the convictions and returned the case to the trial court for reconsideration of the sentence which was considered to be unusually mild. The primary opinion is 125 pages. Including concurring opinions the decision is 191 pages. Over the next several days we shall consider the Court’s opinion. Today we will look at the section dealing with Stewart’s sentence.

Congress passed mandatory sentencing guidelines for Federal criminal cases. But the Supreme Court ruled that the sentencing guidelines can only be advisory. Under the current scheme judges must first determine what the sentence would be under the guidelines and then provide a reason for sentencing to a non-guidelines sentence. Therefore the trial judge, John G. Koeltl, determined Stewart’s guidelines. He stopped when he got to the maximum for the offense, thirty years. But he decided to give her an out of guidelines sentence. He sentenced her to 28 months which of course is significantly below the guidelines. He gave a number of reasons. First the terrorist charges required that she be given a criminal history category of VI. But since she had no record he found that the Category VI was unreasonable. Second the trial court found that Stewart was unlikely to repeat her crime since she will lose her membership in the state bar, Third the court found that Steward personal characteristics are exceptional. She has spent her career representing the poor and the downtrodden often as a court appointed attorney. Fourth, the court took into consideration her health. She is a cancer victim and as a result her prison time is likely to be more difficult that for the average person.

The appellate court remanded the case to the trial judge and asked him to consider two factors which he did not consider since they would have put the sentence above the maximum sentence. The government alleges that when Stewart took the stand in her own defense she committed perjury. It also alleges that she abused her membership in the State Bar to violate the law. While these factors may not have been able to increase the guidelines the appellate court thought they should have been considered in determining whether to go outside the guidelines. Presumably after the trial court considers these factors the Second Circuit will reconsider the appeal and the government’s cross appeal.

The Second Circuit ordered the trial court to remand Stewart and revoke her bail on appeal. This seems rather strange in that the appeal will likely return to the Second Circuit and may yet be considered by the Supreme Court. The trial court is generally in a better position to determine whether or not to revoke Stewart’s bail on appeal and the appellate court should not have gotten involved in the issue.

In our next post we shall consider some of the other issues raised by the appeal.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced that five detainees, including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed will be tried in New york City and another five will be tried by military tribunals, including Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning the bombing the U. S, navy destroyer, the USS Cole in Yemen.

The trial of Mohammed promises to be the biggest trial since the OJ trial. It carries risks and benefits for the United States. The difference between military tribunals and trials in the United States District Court is that a District Court trial must follow all of the rights found in the Bill of Rights, while the defendant’s rights are more limited in a trial before a military tribunal. Specifically the Supreme Court has ruled that testimony obtained by torture or coercion cannot be used in a court but it is permissible before the military tribunals.

Some family members of those who died and conservative Republicans argue that terrorists do not deserve the same rights as American citizens. But by giving terrorist the same rights as we give to others accused of crimes we exhibit our belief in our judicial system and our humanity. What if some of the detainees are innocent. We believe that people are innocent until proven guilty and none of the detainees have been proven guilty in a court of law. Certainly innocent people deserve the full benefit of our laws and the Bill of Rights.

But there are certainly risks involved. It may lead to further terrorist attacks on New York City. They may come on the day set for trial, the day the verdict comes down or on the date of sentencing. While the world may admire our Bill of Rights it will not admire the death penalty if the defendants are convicted. Some may say the death penalty is as barbaric as some of the terrorist acts. Furthermore the government will be rightly blamed for bringing Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri to trial before the tribunal and not in a court of law. The use of testimony obtained through torture will and should be condemned. Furthermore, the use of the death penalty may make the detainees martyrs in many parts of the world and lead to revenge on the United States.

United States District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle granted Mohammed Jawad’s writ of habeas corpus. She ordered the government to release him from Guantanamo and return him to Afghanistan. But she gave the government until August 21 to return him to Afghanistan.

Jawad is the youngest detainee at Guantanamo. It is believed that he was only 12 years old when he was arrested by Afghan police and turned over to the US military.

Under Federal law the president must give Congress 14 days notice before releasing someone from Guantanamo. The judge gave the government until August 6 to give Congress notice.

The government will probably use the next three weeks to develop a case against Jawad and attempt to charge him in Federal Court. But to convict him in Federal Court they have to show that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a much stricter standard than was necessary in the habeas proceedings and if they were unable to meet the habeas standard it is doubtful that they can meet the beyond reasonable doubt standard. The problem with the government’s evidence against Jawad, who they believe threw a grenade into a vehicle carrying two US soldiers and an Afghan interpreter, is that it was obtained by torturing Jawad and it is therefore inadmissible in Federal courts.

Jawad’s former military prosecutor, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, has stated that there is ‘no credible evidence or legal basis’ to justify Jawad’s detention and prosecution, and that his release presents no risk.”

As the judge said, “Enough has been imposed on this young man,”