Life in prison for Padilla?
In sentencing, the judge must find that the convicted Al Qaeda recruit aimed to influence a government. But his trial has scant record of motive.
from the January 15, 2008 edition
Page 2 of 3
He was convicted in August.
Legal analysts say a life sentence is important for the Bush administration to justify its earlier harsh treatment of Padilla.
But it remains unclear whether Cooke, a 2003 Bush judicial nominee, will hand down life sentences for Padilla, Hassoun, and Jayyousi.
To authorize the requested terrorism enhancements under the federal sentencing guidelines, Cooke must find that the criminal activities of Padilla and his codefendants were "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government."
Padilla's lawyer, acting federal public defender Michael Caruso, says this requires the judge to determine that each defendant was personally motivated to participate in his crime by a desire to influence or retaliate against a government. "The government has to prove the motivation of Mr. Padilla," Mr. Caruso told the judge. "There is absolutely no evidence of Mr. Padilla's motivation," he added.
Assistant US Attorney John Shipley countered that the judge need not examine the personal motives of the defendants. Instead, he said, she can infer from the totality of the case and the jury verdict that the terrorism enhancement should be applied to all three men.
"The defendants' goal was to bring about the downfall of governments that either were not Islamic or were not sufficiently Islamic for their radical tastes," writes Mr. Shipley in his brief to the judge. "By their actions, they meant not only to affect or retaliate against these governments, but to eliminate them altogether."
Caruso said the sentencing guidelines require the judge to examine individual motives for actions taken by each defendant, and that since the potential punishment is so severe for his client, she should use the same burden of proof as was used during the trial – beyond a reasonable doubt.
In most sentencing hearings, judges make findings of fact based on a preponderance of evidence. That is just enough evidence to slightly tip a scale. But Caruso and other defense lawyers are arguing that when the potential sentence might be boosted to life in prison solely on the basis of findings of fact by the judge in a sentencing hearing rather than by the jury at trial, the standard of proof should be higher.
RSS feed
