A first look at US case against Padilla
The trial begins Monday in US court for the American – and alleged terror conspirator – held for five years.
from the May 14, 2007 edition
Page 3 of 3
"You want to have two or three issues that really, really nag at the jurors and make them think maybe we just can't convict here," says Faith Gay, a trial lawyer in New York and Miami, and a former federal prosecutor.
Zimet and Ms. Gay add that both sides must be careful not to promise in the opening something they can't deliver during the trial.
Important first words
The opening statements in the Padilla case could be decisive, analysts say.
"You can win the case on the opening statement," says Fred Haddad, a south Florida defense lawyer who served temporarily as counsel for one of Padilla's codefendants, Adham Hassoun.
Mr. Haddad says that if he were still in the case he would use his opening statement to educate jurors about the history of Islam and the culture of devout Muslims that generates "this closeness that you will see, this unyielding affinity to Allah."
Haddad used the same approach while a defense lawyer in two south Florida cases involving attempts to smuggle weapons to the Irish Republican Army. In both cases, he says, jurors initially sided with the British government that IRA supporters were terrorists.
"But by the time the jury is educated as to the history and everything else, jurors invariably recognize what is baloney and what is not, and what is serious and what is not," Haddad says. In both IRA cases, his clients were acquitted of the most serious charges and served relatively light prison sentences.
"I think this jury is going to become very acclimated to what the thoughts are of [the defendants], and what really happened," he says. "And I think the government is going to have a very tough road."
RSS feed
