Login Here
UPDATE: Guilty on all counts. Sentencing in September.
The Padilla jury began deliberations yesterday – and they are already back with a verdict which has just been read. The speed of this decision is stunning – and hopefully a sign that the jury saw through this Kafkaesque case.
Over the three months of the trial, we’ve all been following the case thanks to Lew Koch’s coverage – and you can review the background here as we wait for the verdict to be read. And Lew will be joining us as we discuss the news as it's announced - Lew's been covering this case for five years and it all comes down to today.
"Padilla, 36, and co-defendants Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, both 45, face life in prison if convicted on charges of conspiring to murder, kidnap and maim people overseas and up to 15 years on each of two terrorism material support counts."
The evidence presented by the prosecution was sparse at best – taped wiretaps of Hassoun and Jayyousi captured discussions of vegetables and family life – discussions the prosecutors claimed were code for terrorist activities rather than humanitarian aid work as claimed by the defense. For Padilla, the hyped charges that initially presented this “jomoke” (to quote Lew) as a “star recruit” for Al Qaeda amounted to a supposed “application” to AQ with seven Padilla fingerprints on it. Blocked from the trial was evidence of the torture of Padilla during the 3 1/2 years he was held as an enemy combatant.
UPDATE: Jonathan Turley on CNN says "many lawyers believed he could secure his freedom" because of his treatment. "The complication is that he has all these issues where he can appeal."
Turley is suggesting that the conviction leads now to "a very robust" set of appeals to discuss the conditions under which Padilla was held.
Share This 
Spotlight
Guilty across the board, per MSNBC
Guilty
Zed? Guilty as charged on all 3 counts
Oy Vey…
Whats the verdict?
Guilty on all three counts!
What?
Crap.
All three defendants were found guilty on all three counts, per CNN.
all are guilty on all counts
whoa!
What bullshit.
OMG - I was hoping that the short deliberations would be acquittal
this country is in seriously deep doo-doo…
Turley is speaking now on CNN — and he is absolutely correct that there are a number of appealable issues, and that Padilla will have a strong argument on a number of them.
Wonder if his 3.5 years of being tortured will be deducted from his sentence…
That blows.
I’m really torn - I trust and believe in the jury system, but this guilty seems so, so wrong.
Well my friends. That is it. The justice system as we know it is kaput.
America has officially entered a post democratic, banana republic phase.
If they can do it to an American, we are all now in jeopardy.
-GSD
If enough evidence is suppressed, the desired verdict can be obtained.
well, all I can say is the fat lady at the court of appeals or the Supreme Court haven’t sung.
Now show the jury that torture evidence.
zmulls @ 14
Time served….
Damn. Those men’s lives are ruined. And, in the process, the justification for the miserable FISA legislation was realized. Crap! Crap! Crap!
About what you might expect when the defense is denied the use of evidence that would demonstrate the lies on prosecution side. Appeal prospects: not much. (You know that the WH will want to fast track the appeal process using their shiny new rules, because they can.)
Nothing would be more satisfying that subjecting the prosecutors and jury to the same mind-destroying tactics that were used on Padilla
Here’s hoping this outrageous travesty gets corrected on appeal
[CHS notes: see my comment below — but this skates far too close to the line. Think before you post.]
Well since this worked out so well for the torturing class and their hired/recruited gunsels one can only wonder: WHO IS NEXT?
Open season on Mexicans, as per Orcinus.
Unfortunately, my guess is that the jury didn’t care if he was innocent because a) he was a Muslim and b) he was Hispanic, so they figured he deserves it.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 13
I certainly hope so — and I hope that Padilla’s lawyers use Lew’s briefs here in their appeal.
zmulls @ 14
Actually a good question. This absolutely should be considered as “credit for time already served” toward the ultimate sentence. The government will likely fight that to the bitter end though. This is a sad day. Padilla arguably should be in prison, but over his gang activity, not this.
KingCranky at 25 — I know you are peeved — but don’t even begin to act like the person you despise. And do not make threatening comments on this blog — even in jest — about public officials. That puts Jane and I in the untenable position of having to turn over information to authorities with a lawful subpoena if they ask for it — please think before you post. Thanks.
Pete Williams MSNBC in ref. tp appeals says that any info derived from torture was not used in case.
And how the hell would he know?
Sparkles the Iguana @ 20
Exactly.
what a horror …
updated above with Turley’s comments
Listen, why are you folks talking about this? Jenna Bush has just announced her engagement!
Bush and Rove still playing cute games as America melts into a puddle.
-GSD
KingCranky@25: The jury shouldn’t be tortured: remember, they probably made a point of picking people who didn’t know the background.
how could they have actually deliberated in that time?
Hey maybe Bush will give him a Libby pardon!
nomolos at 31 — Because the judge made rulings to that effect during the case.
If you can trust our peer’s findings when it comes to Libby, you should trust our peer’s findings when it comes to Padilla.
I think a lot of other factors helped:
The “plot” to blow up JFK airport “One of the most chilling plots imaginable could have resulted in unfathomable damage, death adn destruction” United States Attorney Roslynn Mauskoph, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
Watch who you calling cranky there, you…you famous femblogger!
Yep. Very short time for deliberation…
I am sure Alberto Gonzales is flying over right now to expedite the death penalty as we write.
-GSD
Pete Wiiliams knows what “administration officials” tell him! Period.
Does the judge do the sentence? I’m guessing it is required sentencing under guidelines?
cancer_cures @ 38
Sorry - it’s not all or nothing. Juries do make mistakes.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 37
Thanks much. Question though did the judge tell the gov not use use evidence derived from torture…. admitting torture? Or did they agree to not bring some evidence that they may have gotten from the tooth fairy?
I gotta tell you…I’m having trouble processing this.
Lew at 40:
Are you surprised at either the verdict or its speed?
GSD @ 43
That would be a case of perfect timing, wouldn’t it?
Pete Williams is Cheney’s former mouthpiece. I don’t believe a word that escapes from his corrupt pie-hole.
-GSD
Lew at 40 — I think Padilla wasn’t helped by the tactical decision not to put on any evidence on his behalf by his attorneys. But I also know that second guessing that sort of thing from the outside is just plain wrong — because you have no idea what all the factors were in coming to that point. It’s a very, very difficult call to make on behalf of your client to defend that way — and it is tough for a jury not to find someone guilty without something to hang some doubt on, which usually although not always, comes from defense case testimony.
This was a tough case to pull off at trial. But it is a much, much easier procedural and civil liberties argument on appeal. Not to say they will absolutely win, but they do have some very strong arguments. And this was Padilla’s only way to get to the appeals court — through a trial.
Anthony Natale called no witnesses, simply claimed that the government had not proven its case. Is this, among other things, an appeals strategy?
Max sentence Padilla faces is life. Death penalty is not an option.
It just seemed that the Govt case had a lot of smoke and mirrors to it. I expected a jury to at least have some misgivings. What was so compelling that they would find guilty in a day and a half?
I think this means that the 87 “torture” tapes of Padilla being interrogated in the brig will remain closed.
There is hope in Turley’s comments, that even though they are guilty according to what the jury knows now, that upon appeal the real meat of the story will come out. It’s not over yet, and exposure of the torture tactics in court is sorely needed.
Lew Koch @ 48
Aren’t we all. I commented in your post yesterday that he would be found guilty on all charges. I just have no faith left in the uninformed juries of this country. Not to mention we have to all get under the bed when terrorism is mentioned. I am sick and disgusted.
Lew Koch @ 55
They could not be brought forward in an appeal?
Peterr @ 54
The Decider may decide otherwise. It is a matter or grave importance and the unitary executive has a lot of leeway.
-GSD
Kevster @ 55
Probably the Pakistan flight. After all, who goes to Pakistan?
Lew Koch @ 48
Me too Lew. This is really bad.
Lew Koch @ 48
I was kidding about the rapture in the last thread. But this really feels like the end of something. The end of privacy, the end of personal freedom…the end of liberty and justice for all. It’s just tough to get your head around right now. It just sucks.
How were the closing statements? It seemed that the defense was betting on a leaky govt case that they could blow open on close-thoughts?
If I were the defense, I would be asking for a directed verdict from the judge, notwithstanding the jury’s conclusion. No reasonable person could convict Padilla on such flimsy evidence, even absent the information about the torture. This is a shocking result and a very sad day for this country. Those jurors will soon read more about the case and learn to their sorrow that they have collaborated in a monstrous injustice. I would pity them, except that their hasty verdict betrays a stunning lack of seriousness.
itwasntme @ 17
This reminds me of the trial in To Kill A Mockingbird. There the defendant was convicted essentially of being black. Here Padilla was convicted of being a Moslem.
It also reminds me of Camus’ The Stranger where the protagonist is convicted for being an unsympathetic individual.
In short, Padilla was convicted not for what he did but for who he is. This is not the way our justice system is supposed to work. It is a sad day.
There are no words.
Let’s not forget that the internet has been declared the “new Afghanistan” when it comes to breeding Al Qaeda and terrorists.
-GSD
Lew — agreed. Having trouble processing this. I tend to be trusting of juries.
Have we really become such a cowardly nation that we quail at paper-thin threats? And become willing to torture people to try to alleviate our fears?
MSNBC spouting “jihad” fear talk … argh
Christy Hardin Smith at 51 and Jane Hampsher at 52–
I think there has always been a strong feeling that the Padilla case would be resolved/solved by the Supreme Court>
As for which attorney is responsible for the decusion David Marcus at Southern District of Florida says that Michael Caruso carried heavy water,
Pop quiz:
Which of the following could never possibly be perpetrated by the United States of America, given its strong stance on civil liberties?
(1) The treatment of Jose Padilla?
(2) Bypassing FISA.
(3) Satellite surveillance of Americans?
(4) Torture.
Jane — It happens for a number of reasons. In this case, they really couldn’t put Padilla on the stand — he was utterly broken from his confinement, and they made a very powerful argument about him not being competent to stand trial — the judge just didn’t feel that it met the standards required to have that happen. So, with your own client unable to testify, you have to find other witnesses who could be helpful and compelling.
Lew and I were talking about this the other day — a lot of those would have been people that Padilla might have met overseas. How do you find these people when you are defense counsel? And, when you do find them, if they are horrible potential witnesses, you have to make a decision on whether you should call them - or whether they would hurt your case.
You also have to decide if by calling no one, you are sending a message to the jury that the case against your client is weak. Sometimes when you have very limited potential for witnesses, that’s all you have.
I’m not certain what the thinking was on the strategy. But it may be that what they were really heading for was an appeal, where they can argue more forcefully on constitutional grounds than they can with a jury on evidentiary grounds.
The America that all of us grew up believing in lies in ruins.
That is a fact.
-GSD
barbara at 71
Thank for for the pop reality quiz.
Apologies for my harsh rhetoric on your blog
Jane Hamsher @ 53
IANAL but I think the rule is not raised at trial not raisable on appeal.
The Padilla story, the earlier, “Texans to Bush: Stay Off Our Lawn” story, and the following heartbreaker reprinted from Christian Science Monitor
http://www.alternets.org/waroniraq/59733
(about a US soldier in Iraq who refuses to kill and is on trial) all really fall in the same general category, i.e. Humanity.
Are we going to be human/humane? Or are we going to revert to our reptile brain?
Kevster @ 55
well, if they invite you to jury duty, the government clearly knows where you live. and if the Padilla case shows one thing, it’s : we’re next. the jurors just realized earlier.
I cannot begin to express what an utter travesty this is…
Hugh @ 66
Harper Lee’s character did even less, he was convicted for having been desired by a white woman, and being black.
Camus character actually did kill an Arab on a beach (if I recall the song correctly) but I think you are correct in that the case was made against him because of his lack of sympathy, not out of concern for the victim.
Both good examples of existential literature; but, the reality of this case is that the men will be made scapegoats for a policy directed at curtailing personal freedoms in this country. That’s just hugely terrible.
GSD at 74 — Wrong. That America is only gone when people stop standing up for the Constitution. And I’ll be damned if I’m giving up on that, thank you very much.
Siun @ 70
I had to laugh when one of the commentators referred to the difficulties faced by the prosecution in not being able to use information gathered from Padilla when he had no attorney present. Paraphrasing here, he said the government had a “tortured” path to follow to make its case.
Not exactly the word that the government would have chosen, I’m sure, in describing their troubles in presenting evidence.
cancer_cures @ 39
Thank you.
If it does go to the Supreme Ct, than it seems a done deal…I have more faith in juries of uniformed than I do the SCOTUS…
Who realistically expected anything else?
The jury, if it was chosen in a representative fashion, ifi it was a true cross-section of America, would convict 90% of the time under these circumstances.
Two foreigners and a gang-banger. Even if they didn’t do what they were charged with, they probably did something else.
I’m surprised the jury was out as long as they were. And I doubt if being able to mention the 3 1/2 years of torture would have changed anything.
That’s America. Ask Sacco and Vanzetti.
Hugh at 77 — They raised all of the constitutional matters in pre-trial motions and arguments, which should preserve them for appeal later. Plus, whatever cross-examination was done with all the witnesses also preserves issues for appeal. There is a hefty record in this case for use on appeal.
Superb editorial in the Christian Science Monitor from before the verdict:
Regardless of all the dirty tricks played by the government (the supposed protectors of the judicial system), there still was not evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The best argument, probably, though usually unsuccessful on appeal, is the insufficiency of the evidence. There is no evidence, really. Another other strong ground is throwing Padilla in with these guys (for whom the evidence is insufficient as well, as I see it) and letting in all the A.Q. stuff to inflame (and terrorize) the jury.
The jurors gave these guys no deliberation at all, in my opinion. None. I’m sick.
GSD @ 74
Elections have consequences. We just need to work harder to have them go our way. It’s tempting to be despairing but we are stronger and better than that.
Padilla wasn’t allowed to bring up torture in his defense, was he?
In any case, there’s another verdict here that you guys seem to be missing. That is: the criminal system works for terrorists too! It totally erases all the arguments for opening Guantanamo and all that stuff. If you can get a terrorist in jail for life through our criminal justice system, why do we need all these new “laws” just for terrorists?
Siun @ 70
In addition to their prisons, predators and murderers doc block series. All fear all the time.
Christy Hardin Smith at 72
All along, I have contended that Padilla was no poster boy, trying to find God or Allah or whatever. He was a cold blooded murderer at 15.
No one here (I hope) believes that Padilla wasn’t having conversations with some very bad people. He was.
My contention all along was — as Christina notes — Padilla was a jamoke incapable of pulling over any kind of terrorist deed except for maybe blowing up his own ass.
But to believe he was capable of, as the indictement claimed, “murder, kidnapping and maiming” — nope. No way, Jose. All of you are familiar with his arrest record. He fired pistol shots at a motorist who cut him off. Delayed gratification was not in his vocabulary,
Christy Hardin Smith @ 14
The only healthy response is pure skepticism. There is no justice here in this country. While there are arguments to be made, there is no objective party to hear them.
raven @ 84
There was a big difference in the judges and the prosecutors. In the Libby trial, they were upstanding and outstanding. In the Padilla case, they were hacks.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 73
Interesting.
Kevster @ 90
What consequences? Congress has ceased doing the will of the people. Period.
We scream and yell when the wingnuts scream and yell about how unfair the Libby verdict is and then we scream and yell because this verdict is so unfair.
I’m certain that Padilla’s not particularly sympathetic history did not help.
The government’s case was flimsy, but the defense’s total reliance on ‘innocent until proven guilty’ was challenged by Padilla’s history.
That is what makes this case particularly threatening.
The example has been set.
Osama bin Forgotten is laughing his head off. Look at how he was able to affect so many things. Justice. Our economy…
GeorgeSimian at 90
No reference to torture allowed
raven @ 98
But the former is based on ideology and the latter is based on the rule of law.
Christy,
I am sorry but the government has been changed under our own feet. It hasn’t changed our ideals about what the government should be and I don’t advocate giving up or not fighting, but I will repeat, the government that we grew up believing in is gone, gone, gone.
It doesn’t matter what we think, it is the reality of what has been done.
-GSD
Also, the Libby trial was procedurally fair because it involved one of the Bush/Cheney inner circle.
This Padilla trial is and was a sham from beginning to end.
Loo Hoo. @ 100
9/11 changed everything.
N=1 @ 102
Never mind, I should know better.
N=1 at 94 — Really? Because I worked in the judicial system every day when I was a lawyer. Every single day. And I managed to do a very good job of finding justice for my criminal clients in private practice and in meting it out for those I prosecuted. And I know a large number of very decent people who do the same thing every day.
Do not make the mistake of visiting the sins of the Bush Administration on the whole of the judiciary. They need to carry their own tainted water — but I’ll be damned if I’m picking it up for them because I sure as hell earned my own clean bucket and I know a lot of people who take their jobs — and their ethics — just as seriously in doing their work.
Lew Koch @ 56
Let’s not put the word torture in quotation marks. It is an abuse of language.
I refer to the interrogation tactics as torture, by definition.
When you see a photo of Padilla or the Guantanamo prisoners in earmuffs, goggles, manacles, etc., you are seeing torture as it happens. Sensory deprivation is a torture technique, again by definition, and part of the torture program.
Bringing it into the open doesn’t just desensitize citizens and the public–it allows (many of) us to pretend it isn’t happening at all.
raven @ 98
Big difference - in the Libby trial there was actual evidence of criminal behaviour.
I seriously hope they put Padilla on a suicide watch. This does not come from any information but a growing interest in the stories of those who were tortured that I’m now examining.
Lew @ 93
Thank you for the perspective.
From the LA Times site but written by Madeline Bar Diaz for the S. FL Sun-Sentinel:
PB (peanut butter) @ 80
Thanks to Lew, FDL and Siunshine for bringing this trial to us.
I need oxygen.
Could this have been the defense’s intention all along, that is to get a guilty verdict and then go to appeal where there might be a more favorable outcome?
It sounds weird to me but I’m not a lawyer nor do I play chess but there’s something in the back of my head that this isn’t over by a long shot.
rich at 106
Thank you. Quotes will be left off from now on.
I don’t even doubt that there is a solid criminal case against Padilla, but the sham, the banana republic thug tactics that surrounded his arrest and detainment should have made any, ANY judge declare a mistrial.
We witnessed a sham of justice that would have made Stalin smile.
-GSD
Christy Hardin Smith @ 106
Christy:
there is no doubt that individuals are carrying their load and then some. But there is no longer any assurance that the body of the justice system is working. When one has to rely on the hope that an individual may be ethical and work within the rule of law, instead of being able to presuppose that all officers of the court and judges will uphold the rule of law and the Constitution, then the system is broken.
It is an indictment of a broken system, and not of people such as yourself who labor within it.
Does anyone know how this landed in the Florida courts?
That aspect alone raises doubts for me.
N=1 @ 102
The other difference is that the Libby decision will stand up on appeal due to some supurb lawering and a competent judge.
The Padilla trial was not in the same court, literally or figurativly.
Does this apply to the jury as well?