| When "Zealous Advocacy" Crosses the Line |
|
|
| Written by InvestigativeProject.org |
| Wednesday, 18 November 2009 04:41 |
|
A federal appeals court has denied disbarred attorney Lynne Stewart's challenge to her 2005 conviction for helping her client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, relay messages from his prison cell to other terrorists. The panel's findings rejected Stewart's claims across the board, including the length of her sentence, with the only dissent coming from a judge who felt the trial court's "breathtakingly low sentence of 2 1/3 years ... trivializes Stewart's extremely serious conduct."
Those restrictions included the screening of all outgoing and incoming non-legal mail and allowing telephone contacts only with his attorneys and his wife. Such measures often are used in gang and terrorism related sentences to prevent further mayhem by the prisoner and typically are effective. The court in Stewart's appeal noted that restrictions rely on "the trust placed in the attorney." In this case, Stewart repeatedly swore under oath that she would comply with the terms that had been put in place for communicating with her client. Despite these promises, as Judge John M. Walker, Jr. observed, Stewart "executed a scheme of lies and deception against the government to keep the lines of communication open between Rahman and Egyptian jihadists" in al Gama'a al Islamiyya. Stewart served as a conduit between Rahman and the outside world for years, allowing him to exercise his influence over a cease-fire that had been declared by al-Gama'a. Following his incarceration, a faction of al-Gama'a declared a unilateral cease-fire regarding its violent operations in Egypt. A rival faction of the organization, which did not support the move, sought the issuance of a fatwa - or religious edict - from Rahman, who was locked up in federal prison with no access to his followers. That's when Stewart smuggled letters from and to the Blind Sheikh, including one in 2000 which stated:
Believing that the written response was not forceful enough, Stewart continued to disregard the restrictions and spoke with a Reuters reporter based in Cairo, telling him that "Abdel Rahman was withdrawing his support for the ceasefire that currently exists." Although Stewart claimed these actions were simply "zealous advocacy" on behalf of her client, a jury in the Southern District of New York called them criminal. She was convicted of all counts arising from her unauthorized contacts with and behavior related to the Blind Sheikh. The appellate court notes that Rahman was a key player in conspiracies to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak while he was visiting New York City; to attack military installations; bomb the World Trade Center in 1993; and a conspiracy to bomb bridges, tunnels, and the federal building containing the New York office of the FBI. According to the government's evidence at his trial:
As the appellate court explained in denying Stewart's challenges, "Abdel Rahman's instrumental participation-indeed, his leadership-would...have been unavailable to the conspiracy without the active participation of Stewart." Despite the dissenting opinion, the court left open the chance for reconsideration of her two-year sentence. Consequently, the district court will have an opportunity to reconsider that sentence, taking into consideration additional facts, including that Stewart intentionally lied to investigators and attempted to hide her criminal conduct. Whether or not the District Court enhances Stewart's sentence, this ruling comes at an important time. As the Justice Department begins preparations for the criminal trial of Khaleed Sheikh Mohammad in the Southern District of New York, it must remain vigilant to ensure that sensitive information is not leaked by defense attorneys. While this case surely will be used as a prime example for why terrorists should not be tried in civilian courts, it is important to remember that Stewart was an anomaly. Her actions violated not only the Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorneys, but court orders and common sense. A sentence reflecting the true nature of her crimes is not only consistent with the evidence presented at her trial but demanded by the law. ------------------------------------------
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Trackback(0)
Comments (0)
![]() Write comment
|
|
fort worth theft attorney www.bakerdameron.com - choose a fort worth theft attorney who will fight for your rights with dedication and expertise |
| Exit Sign |