Tuesday, May 17, 2005
The Trial of Dr. Sami Al-Arian- The First Day
by Melva Underbakke
May 16, 2005
The first day of jury selection in the trial of Dr. Sami Al-Arian was held on Monday, May 16, 2005, Judge Moody presiding. Potential jurors (who were identified by numbers only) filled up the courtroom on the 13th floor, and so reporters, the public, and the artist watched via television from a room on the fifth floor of the Sam Gibbons Federal Courthouse.
Unlike many previous hearings, Dr. Al-Arian was present, looking very nice in a suit and tie.
There were 57 potential jurors to interview. The session began with general instructions, such as the need for taking notes. And the need for impartiality, which means they can receive no information about the case outside of the courtroom until the verdict is in. No talking to friends, no watching TV about the case, no reading the newspaper about the case, etc.
Judge Moody began with the basic premise that the burden is on the government to prove that Dr. Al-Arian is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The defendant doesn’t have to prove anything. He is innocent until proven guilty.
Following general instructions, the candidates were interviewed five at a time. They were first questioned by the prosecutors and then by the defense. Questions focused on how they would feel if the defendant did not testify (Fifth Amendment), their attitudes toward free speech and whether or not it extends to non-citizens, how they felt about people who were different from them, how much the publicity in the area has affected them, their attitudes toward the media, and the level of hardship they would face during a trial lasting at least six months.
Most of these potentials jurors did not make the cut. What follows are some of the responses that led to exclusion by the judge.
Jury 22 had followed the case from the beginning – the “O”Reilly Factor”, and could not set that aside. This respondent also felt that sometimes it was all right to criticize the government, but that “there are different types of criticism”.
One had formed a ‘pretty strong opinion already”. Another wasn’t sure of the charges, but she didn’t think she could be fair.
And yet another thought that Palestinians were responsible 9-11. Even information from the prosecutors that this was not true did not change this opinion. The possible juror still said that while he would like to set things aside, he wasn’t sure that he could.
People were excused from jury duty sometimes for reasons of hardship, but usually for reasons of bias. Unfortunately, many of the people who were retained also showed bias. For example, one prospective juror did not think the government would waste so much time and money unless they had a very good case, and another felt that the right to criticize the government should not be extended to non-citizens.
Of the 47 potential jurors questioned in person on the first day, only 11 were retained. A very high proportion of possible jurors have shown they cannot be impartial, and even some of those who were not excused showed a large amount of bias.
At the end of the first day, I wonder how can Dr. Al-Arian ever get a fair trial?
Correction - The Trial of Dr. Sami Al-Arian- The First Day
May 16, 2005
My earlier report on the first day of jury selection contained some errors in the numbers. Actually, most of the potential jurors were retained, although many of these exhibited bias. Unless they said that they could not put the bias aside and be impartial, they were retained as potential jurors.
I apologize for the mix-up. The lesson is, don’t write too late at night!
Mel
May 16, 2005
The first day of jury selection in the trial of Dr. Sami Al-Arian was held on Monday, May 16, 2005, Judge Moody presiding. Potential jurors (who were identified by numbers only) filled up the courtroom on the 13th floor, and so reporters, the public, and the artist watched via television from a room on the fifth floor of the Sam Gibbons Federal Courthouse.
Unlike many previous hearings, Dr. Al-Arian was present, looking very nice in a suit and tie.
There were 57 potential jurors to interview. The session began with general instructions, such as the need for taking notes. And the need for impartiality, which means they can receive no information about the case outside of the courtroom until the verdict is in. No talking to friends, no watching TV about the case, no reading the newspaper about the case, etc.
Judge Moody began with the basic premise that the burden is on the government to prove that Dr. Al-Arian is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The defendant doesn’t have to prove anything. He is innocent until proven guilty.
Following general instructions, the candidates were interviewed five at a time. They were first questioned by the prosecutors and then by the defense. Questions focused on how they would feel if the defendant did not testify (Fifth Amendment), their attitudes toward free speech and whether or not it extends to non-citizens, how they felt about people who were different from them, how much the publicity in the area has affected them, their attitudes toward the media, and the level of hardship they would face during a trial lasting at least six months.
Most of these potentials jurors did not make the cut. What follows are some of the responses that led to exclusion by the judge.
Jury 22 had followed the case from the beginning – the “O”Reilly Factor”, and could not set that aside. This respondent also felt that sometimes it was all right to criticize the government, but that “there are different types of criticism”.
One had formed a ‘pretty strong opinion already”. Another wasn’t sure of the charges, but she didn’t think she could be fair.
And yet another thought that Palestinians were responsible 9-11. Even information from the prosecutors that this was not true did not change this opinion. The possible juror still said that while he would like to set things aside, he wasn’t sure that he could.
People were excused from jury duty sometimes for reasons of hardship, but usually for reasons of bias. Unfortunately, many of the people who were retained also showed bias. For example, one prospective juror did not think the government would waste so much time and money unless they had a very good case, and another felt that the right to criticize the government should not be extended to non-citizens.
Of the 47 potential jurors questioned in person on the first day, only 11 were retained. A very high proportion of possible jurors have shown they cannot be impartial, and even some of those who were not excused showed a large amount of bias.
At the end of the first day, I wonder how can Dr. Al-Arian ever get a fair trial?
Correction - The Trial of Dr. Sami Al-Arian- The First Day
May 16, 2005
My earlier report on the first day of jury selection contained some errors in the numbers. Actually, most of the potential jurors were retained, although many of these exhibited bias. Unless they said that they could not put the bias aside and be impartial, they were retained as potential jurors.
I apologize for the mix-up. The lesson is, don’t write too late at night!
Mel
