TP: Do you think your client committed the crimes he is accused of? Do you think the detainees who will stand trial in New York committed the crimes the government is about to accuse them of? Do you think Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the "mastermind of 9/11"?
SF: I never give such issues a second thought in this, or any other, case. Any attorney who tells you that he or she considers such matters in his or her clients' cases is not being forthright or isn't much of an attorney. Attorneys live in a world of reasonable inferences drawn from evidence, not in a world of what happened, or what didn't happen. We leave that to bloggers.
TP: You have stated that all evidence in the case is irrelevant. Yet here you have said that "attorneys live in a world of Reasonable inferences drawn from evidence". Earlier you called the upcoming New York trial " a show trial, choreographed by the government". Since the detainees plan to plead not guilty, there will be a trial. That means the government will have to convince a jury that these men committed the crimes they are accused of. How will the government convict the detainees without evidence?
SF: I don't know that the government doesn't have evidence. Perhaps it does. Perhaps it doesn't need it, at least under my theory. It is highly unlikely that any jury will have the temerity to acquit these defendants, irregardless of the evidence, or lack thereof, particularly in light of the firestorm of publicity that arose recently after I articulated Mr. al-Baluchi's apparently controversial defense. Indeed, it is unlikely that the judge will even allow Mr. al-Baluchi to even present his defense. If the judge disallows Mr. al-Baluchi the ability to present his defense, then evidence of his defense is, by definition, irrelevant.
Furthermore, my claim that the evidence is irrelevant is tied to President Obama's declaration that my client's uncle will be convicted and that he will receive the death penalty, claims that were made before my client's uncle was even charged. In addition, Attorney General Holder's proclamation that "failure is not an option," and that the government has every intention of holding my client and his codefendants in custody, even should they be acquitted, are support for my claim that the evidence is irrelevant, as is the grand jury now hearing evidence here in Manhattan in the 9/11 matter and the petit jury that will hear the trial itself.
TF: Could you articulate this "controversial defense" Mr. Baluchi has planned, for the benefit of our readers?
SF: The controversial defense is that he and others participated in the September 11th terrorist attacks, but that they were justified in so acting as they were doing so in self defense and in the defense of others.
TP: You said you "articulated" Mr. Baluchi's defense. Did you propose this defense, or help him plan it? Or are you repeating what he has told you he is going to do at the trial? Where did this "justification defense" originate?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
