Feds warn of jury tampering in Detroit

[Mosby]

Federal prosecutors are publicly accusing a Palestinian-American activist of an "almost certainly criminal" effort to derail the trial of a colleague accused of naturalization fraud for failing to disclose a terrorism conviction in Israel more than four decades ago.

In a motion filed Friday in connection with the upcoming trial of Rasmea Odeh, prosecutors accuse activist Hatem Abudayyeh of the Chicago-based Arab American Action Network and other demonstrators of mounting protests aimed at swaying a yet-to-be named jury in Odeh's case. The motion asks that the names of jurors not be made public or revealed to the defendant or her lawyers and that the jury be assembled off-site to avoid encountering the protesters.

"Since the date of defendant’s arrest for naturalization fraud, Hatem Abudayyeh has orchestrated a concerted effort to influence the criminal proceedings against defendant, which has resulted, at each proceeding, in a large group outside the Courthouse protesting and parading, carrying signs demanding dismissal of charges and 'Justice for Rasmea' and displaying the Palestinian flag," prosecutors wrote in the new motion (posted here). "Abudayyeh has publicly stated that a goal of filling the courtroom, rallying outside the courthouse, and chanting while holding posters is to influence the opinions of jurors....As is evident from Mr. Abudayyeh’s own statements, it is his goal, and that of his supporters, to tamper with the prospective and seated jurors in order to sway the jury in defendant’s favor."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/10/feds-warn-of-jury-tampering-in-detroit-196591.html

[Scootaloo]

1. Holding protests is "jury tampering"?

Huh.

[Mosby]

4. Cox v. Louisiana

Last edited Sun Oct 12, 2014, 12:34 AM - Edit history (2)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/379/559

There can be no question that a State has a legitimate interest in protecting its judicial system from the pressures which picketing near a courthouse might create. Since we are committed to a government of laws, and not of men, it is of the utmost importance that the administration of justice be absolutely fair and orderly. This Court has recognized that the unhindered and untrammeled functioning of our courts is part of the very foundation of our constitutional democracy. See Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 383. The constitutional safeguards relating to the integrity of the criminal process attend every stage of a criminal proceeding, starting with arrest and culminating with a trial "in a courtroom presided over by a judge." Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 727. There can be no doubt that they embrace the fundamental conception of a fair trial, and that they exclude influence or domination by either a hostileor friendly mob. There is no room at any stage of judicial proceedings for such intervention; mob law is the very antithesis of due process. See Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 347 (Holmes, J., dissenting). A State may adopt safeguards necessary and appropriate to assure that the administration of justice at all stages is free from outside control and influence. A narrowly drawn statute such as the one under review is obviously a safeguard both necessary and appropriate to vindicate the State's interest in assuring justice under law [p563]

Huh.

[azurnoir]

6. The judgment against Cox was overturned - more about this case

The case arose after the picketing of a segregated restaurant in Baton Rouge, Louisiana led to 23 student protesters from a black college being arrested. The next day, B. Elton Cox, a minister, arranged a protest of 2,000 people at the courthouse where the students were being held. The police agreed to allow the protest as long as it was across the street from the courthouse.

Between 100 to 300 whites gathered on the other side of the street. The protesters began to sing songs and hymns causing the jailed students to respond by singing.

Cox then gave a speech urging the other protesters to sit at the segregated lunch counters causing "muttering" and "grumbling" in the crowd across the street.

A sheriff then ordered the protesters to disperse. When they would not, the police used tear gas to disperse the crowd. The next day Cox was arrested.


Justice Goldberg, writing for the court, overturned his conviction.

A key piece of evidence, countering the State's claim that the singing from the jail turned the peaceful assembly into a riotous one. There was a film of the protest; the judges watched it with rapt attention. The film showed that it was peaceful until the police joined in.

Labor unions were a factor in the Court's decision. Labor unions use picketing as a common tactic, so any case concerning public assembly is of great interest to labor groups. Justices Black and Clark made note of the obstruction charge as bad for labor picketing in their opinions, and even stated that the threat to labor picketing was their main reasoning for that decision. (Kalven 1965) In the words of one justice, Hugo L. Black, “Those who encourage minority groups to believe that the United States Constitution and Federal laws give them a right to patrol and picket in the streets whenever they choose, in order to advance what they think to be a just and noble end, do no service to those minority groups, their cause, or their country.” (Graham, pg 2) Another link with labor groups is Associate Justice Goldberg, the Justice who delivered the opinion in Cox v. Louisiana, was formally special counsel to the major labor group the AFL-CIO (New York Times July 16, 1960 pg. 7).

Cox v. Louisiana did not provide the response and verdict that some critics believe it could have (Steel, pg. 2) Instead, the Court's response to the civil rights movement was more ambivalent and reflective of white attitudes that were against black protest. Of the three convictions of Cox, (breach of peace, picketing near the courthouse, and obstruction of a public passageway), the justices all agreed that the breach of peace conviction did not stand. The justices disagreed about the convictions of picketing near the courthouse and the obstruction of a public passageway. While the courts did upset the convictions, “…the opinions…bristled with cautions and with a lack of sympathy for such forms of protest (Klaven pg. 8).”

This page was last modified on 4 March 2014 at 02:09.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_v._Louisiana

[azurnoir]

2. the trial will not begin until in November, so what jury is there to tamper with?

In a chilling attack on civil liberties, prosecutors in the case of Palestinian American leader Rasmea Odeh filed a motion in Federal Court Oct. 3, which characterized the efforts of the Rasmea Odeh defense campaign, as “jury tampering” and “almost certainly criminal.” The prosecution asked Judge Gershwin Drain for an “Anonymous Jury,” which means that the names of the jurors are kept secret from the defense attorneys, and that an array of security measures are put it place during the trial that make it seem like 67-year-old Rasmea Odeh is a very dangerous person.

Everyone who has ever participated in protest at a courthouse against an unjust legal proceeding or raised their voice in defense of a political prisoner should be alarmed at this turn of events.

There is no evidence at all for the baseless accusations against the movement in support of Rasmea. The prosecutor’s motion is a clumsy attempt at intimidation and it is an attack on all of our civil liberties.

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2014/10/11/condemn-government-threats-against-supporters-rasmea-odeh

[shaayecanaan]

8. Thanks Azurnoir, good responses by you (nt)

[azurnoir]

3. also I found the authors 'oh BTW' need to imply that Abudayyeh has some relationship with Obama

Abudayyeh, who serves as executive director of the AAAN, did not respond to an e-mail and phone message seeking comment for this post. He visited the White House in 2010 for an invitation-only briefing for Arab-American leaders. In addition, President Barack Obama has some historical ties to the Chicago-based Arab-American group, having spoken at an event it sponsored in 2003.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/10/feds-warn-of-jury-tampering-in-detroit-196591.html

[Scootaloo]

5. Well, it's Politico...

Politico has a soft-right angle, which doesn't actively promote right-wing positions or voices, but does bring out hte knives for Democrats.

[shaayecanaan]

7. It brings out the knives for Arabs even more (nt)

[Scootaloo]

11. well, that's American media in general, not just politico

[Jefferson23]

9. Defense Confirms: Rasmea Odeh Targeted for Palestine Activism 8/29/2014

The defense team for Chicago Palestinian community leader, Rasmea Odeh, have uncovered new evidence that confirms her alleged immigration fraud case is based on her being targeted for Palestine activism. Yesterday, they filled a motion to dismiss the indictment against her.

Rasmea Odeh was arrested on October 22, 2013 by agents of the Department of Homeland Security and charged with immigration fraud. Allegedly, in her application for citizenship made 20 years ago, she didn’t mention that she was arrested in Palestine 45 years ago by an Israeli military court that had tortured her to confess to bombings in Jerusalem. (For additional background on Odeh’s case, see Rasmea Odeh: Repression of a Palestinian Community Leader.)

In the Chicago courtroom on the day of her arrest, Assistant U.S. Attorney Barry Jonas was seen conferring with the prosecutors. At the time, that was the first clue Odeh’s indictment was related to the case of the well-known Palestinian and anti-war Midwest activists whose homes were raided by the FBI when the U.S. attorney alleged that they had provided material support to foreign terrorist organizations in Palestine. Eventually a total of 23 activists were subpoenaed, but all refused to testify and were never charged assuming because of a lack of evidence. Members of multiple organizations were also targeted including the Anti-War Committee in Minneapolis, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, Arab American Action Network (AAAN), Palestine Solidarity Group – Chicago, and others. Assistant U.S. Attorney Barry Jonas continues to lead this ongoing investigation. Odeh’s supporters could easily presume that Odeh and the case of the 23 were related. Hatem Abudayyeh, Executive Director of the AAAN and one of the activists whose home was raided by the FBI, is also a colleague of Odeh, Assistant Director of the AAAN.

It’s important to note that this ongoing investigation involves activists from multiple struggles including the anti-war movement, Colombia, Cuba, and immigration rights, but it’s primary focus is support for Palestine. Echoing what’s happening to Odeh now, Carlos Montez, a veteran Chicano, anti-war, and immigrant rights activist, whose name appeared on a search warrant of the Anti-War Committee office in Minneapolis, was indicted in May of 2011 on unrelated charges related to a protest 45 years ago. The charges were eventually thrown out of court. This multi-year investigation that involves targeting social justice movements, in this case Palestine activism, by criminalizing their activity and suppressing any coalition building among different groups has been a trend throughout U.S. Justice Department and FBI history. More on this trend later.

http://chicagomonitor.com/2014/08/defense-confirms-rasmea-odeh-targeted-for-palestine-activism/

[Carlos Rodrigez]

10. Man oh man

This Chicago Monitor article is pretty deceptive in claiming Odeh was merely arrested, without mentioning he was convicted.

Now, I am sure some people will say that a conviction by Israel is no evidence at all. But Odeh should have disclosed the conviction and argued to immigration that he had been innocent. I cannot fathom an immigration system that permits people to lie about their past convictions, notwithstanding that surely some people are falsely convicted.

As far as jury tampering, just imagine if this were right after 9/11, and the protestors were saying we need to crack down on terrorism. I imagine the Arab side would be calling the juror tampered with, on the basis of the protests. I should think there should be serious restraints on protests that can influence a jury. Juries are not presumed to be terribly logical. Protests outside courts should be given more latitude when there is no jury because judges are less suspectible to influence.