|
STATEMENT BY FAMILY OF DR. AAFIA SIDDIQUI IN RESPONSE TO GUILTY VERDICT |
 |
 |
 |
|
February 3, 2010, New York, NY – The International Justice Network (IJNetwork) represents the family of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui in the United States. Attorneys from IJNetwork have been monitoring her trial, which began on January 19, and ended with a guilty verdict today in U.S. Federal Court in the Southern District of New York.
"Today marks the close of another sad chapter in the life of our sister, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. Today she was unjustly found guilty. Though she was not charged with any terrorism-related offense, Judge Berman permitted the prosecution's witnesses to characterize our sister as a terrorist -- which, based on copious evidence, she clearly is not. Today's verdict is one of many legal errors that allowed the prosecution to build a case against our sister based on hate, rather than fact. We believe that as a result, she was denied a fair trial, and today's verdict must be overturned on appeal."
February 3, 2010, New York, NY – The International Justice Network
(IJNetwork) represents the family of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui in the United
States. Attorneys from IJNetwork have been monitoring her trial, which
began on January 19, and ended with a guilty verdict today in U.S.
Federal Court in the Southern District of New York.
"Today marks the close of another sad chapter in the life of our
sister, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. Today she was unjustly found guilty.
Though she was not charged with any terrorism-related offense, Judge
Berman permitted the prosecution's witnesses to characterize our
sister as a terrorist -- which, based on copious evidence, she clearly
is not. Today's verdict is one of many legal errors that allowed the
prosecution to build a case against our sister based on hate, rather
than fact. We believe that as a result, she was denied a fair trial,
and today's verdict must be overturned on appeal."
|
|
|
Summary of Court Hearing from January 13 |
|
|
|
|
Aafia Vs USA
Summary of Proceedings (this is a compilation from multiple notes and is not a complete or comprehensive transcript)
Aafia was again brought to court inspite of her protest and after another forced strip search. She reiterated that she is boycotting the trial and that her silence should not be taken as acceptance of the process; rather it is a protest at the many hypocrisies and injustices that have been done to her.
Attendance was sparse. Courtroom was changed to 26-B while the notices at the entry listed it as 21-B. This caused many to arrive late.
The judge made several very important rulings, mainly granting almost all of the prosecution’s motions and rejecting most defense motions.
- The judge allowed the prosecution to use any handwritten material found on Dr Aafia even though the actual Afghanis who claim she had the material will not be testifying (and cannot be confronted or cross examined). The judge said that he wanted the prosecution to be able to prove intent and motive (even though those items may not be relevant to the shooting for which Dr Aafia is charged).
- The judge ruled that printed material could not be admitted; then offered a suggestion to the prosecution that it could be referred to by witnesses.
- The judge ruled that any chemicals found could not be admitted.
- Judge granted the prosecution application to limit the cross examination of FBI agents so that the disciplinary action for cause of one of the FBI agents could not be brought into the trial.
- The judge denied the defense motion challenging the qualifications of the prosecution fingerprint expert. Mr. Fife, the finger print “expert” will be allowed to testify despite having limited experience and only testified 4 times in his career.
- Judge rued that a thumb drive allegedly found with Dr Aafia could not be admitted, nor its contents.
- Judge ruled that materials recovered by Afghan police could be admitted despite the fact that the recovering officers will not be available to testify and establish chain of custody.
- Judge ruled that statements by Dr Aafia to Afghanis will be allowed (despite the fact that she was not mirandized nor will those Afghanis be available for cross examination.)
- Judge allowed that prosecution could introduce Dr Aafia’s education to establish she is an MIT scientist (despite that fact that this has no relevance to the charges she is facing)
- Judge ruled that the defense and prosecution resolve the issue of using telephone conversations of Dr Aafia. Prosecution argued that they be allowed to use excerpts to establish that Dr Aafia can speak both English and Urdu, a point that the defense has readily conceded. Defense objects that “excerpts” of the prosecution’s choosing can be highly selective, out of context and could be constructed to be potentially prejudicial.
- Judge ruled that testimony of Afghan police who will not be present cannot be admitted but their statements about recovered items can be used (no cross examination possible)
- Judge granted motion to exclude any statements suggesting Dr Aafia had any Al Qaeda, terrorism, Taliban links, etc. But then he modified the ruling by saying that prosecution witnesses can make references to show that they were there to fight AQ and Taliban. Defense protested that these would be highly prejudicial but the judge told them to save their objections for the trial and he will rule then (after the references have already been made).
- Aafia interjected saying that she disagreed with the judge and is being forced to go through this. The judge told her he was fair and was giving her a chance to participate and would enter her comments into the record. Aafia doubted whether her statements are actually recorded accurately and said “ Idon’t trust you. You have not given me any reason to trust you.” She reminded him that he should not take her silence as a sign of participation. “It is a peaceful protest”. She also reminded the judge that he never allowed her the circumstances where she could choose her own lawyers. The judge told her she was appropriately represented and he would not continue any discussion with her.
- The judge concluded the hearing by asking the length for the opening statements on Tuesday, January 19. prosecution statement will be by Jenna Gabb and expected to be 15-20mins. Defense will open with Charles Swift for 30 mins.
There was a break before start of jury Selection.
SUMMARY OF JURY SELECTION WILL BE SENT AFTER THE PROCESS IS COMPLETE.
Final Note:
In the Afternoon, Aafia informed the judge that she will need a break between 3:00PM and 4:30PM so she can say her prayers. One of the defense lawyers was asked to find out what religious authority required that she must pray during a specific period. After being briefed, the lawyer tried to explain the timings of Islamic prayers to the Judge. He instead said that rather than accommodate the prayer time, he will try to finish each day’s business by 3:00 Pm so the issue was moot. (The concern with this decision is that even if proceedings are actually completed by that time, the process is that the marshals take Aafia immediately to prison, about 45 minutes away at that time of day so she will likely miss her time window)
|
|
Summary of Court Hearing from January 11 |
|
|
|
|
Aafia Siddiqui vs USA
The following is a summary based on a compilation of eyewitness accounts (It is not a transcript or complete account of a hearing that lasted about 2 hours):
The hearing was held at 2:30PM in courtroom 21-B of the federal court in Manhattan under presiding judge Richard Berman.
Approx 6 reporters and 25 -30 people where in attendance, mainly supporters of Dr. Aafia.
Dr. Aafia was brought to court by two US marshals, this time including one female officer.
- Upon arriving, Aafia made a public appeal that "no revenge should be taken in her name," reminding the spectators that "Prophet Muhammad forgave those who did injustice to him."
- She also stated that she did not accept the defense team as her lawyers and she relieves them and is boycotting the trial.
- Then she sat down, remaining silent for the duration of the proceedings.
The purpose of the hearing was to determine what evidence will be allowed in the trial.
The key points made were:
Prosecution categorically stated that they will not be alleging that Aafia is a member of Al-Qaeda or any terrorist organization, the Taliban or etc., but they wanted to be able to use these phrases in the context of the trial.
Defense objected to that as being highly prejudicial. Judge Berman did not rule.
The prosecution also wanted to bring Aafia's education into evidence to show that she studied at MIT and therefore had knowledge of sciences and chemicals. The defense objected that there is nothing in charges about any chemical weapons. They reminded the court that the government had limited this case to just the shooting and now wanted to bring in selective outside information only to confuse and prejudice the public and cover up the holes in their case.
Again the judge did not rule.
The defense wanted to exclude any items claimed to be on Aafia person since the Afghan police who arrested Dr. Aafia would not be brought to court and two of the Afghan police officers were NOT even able to identify Aafia as the person they arrested! The defense then argued that any materials allegedly in Aafia's possession would be heresay.
The defense argued that Aafia simply did not do any of what is in the charges. The forensic evidence showed the following:
- No fingerprints on the gun
The asserted that only shooting that occured was that Aafia Siddiqui was shot.
The defense stated that based on all the evidence they have been shown, they are so confident that Aafia never even touched the gun, that the would concede "intent" if it could be proven that Aafia in fact picked up the gun.
They would question the credibility of any witness that claimed otherwise.
The defense wanted to limit expert testimony regarding importance of fingerprints. Prosecution argued that lack of fingerprints was not unusual.
The defense wanted to show video deposition of Afghani police. The judge said he was uncomfortable with technology but would consider it and he put the onus of providing equipment on the defense.
The defense pointed out that one of the FBI agents who initially went to the scene has a history of disciplinary action and that history should be brought into the case. The prosecution stated that it was not relevant.
The judge stated that he will issue his rulings on wednesday, January 13 at 9:00AM.
The jury selection is set to start on January 13 at 10:00am after judge's rulings.
Judge Berman did not allow jury questionaire and said he will decide what questions the defense is allowed to ask potential jurors. He wanted to limit the number and type of questions to allow for quick jury selection. This will make it hard for the defense to filter potetially prejudicial jurors.
The defense reuquested that any jurors with Indian or Hindiu sensitivities be disqulified because some of Aafia's statements could be misconstrued to seem unfavorable to those groups.
No Daubert hearing for expert witnesses will be held.
The prosecution's experts will be admitted despite defense objectoins to their qualifications.
The defense complained that the prosecution has still not turned over the list of witnesses they intend to call so defense has no idea who those witnesses are. It had previously been agreed that the defense would get those names at least 1 week before the start of trial which meant start of jury selection per the judge. The judge agreed, but the prosecution argued that the judge moved the date up one week and they now wanted start of trial to be defined as start of opening statements so they will give the list of names by end of day on jan 12. The judge let the prosecution redefine the date. The prosecution also said they would only give names, no other information. The defense objected as that gives them no way to prepare properly to examine the witnesses.
There were procedural issues that needed resolution between defense and prosecution which the judge asked the 2 sides to resolve among themselves.
The defense again asked about allowing Aafia to be spared the strip searches and have a video link. The judge said he wanted now for her to have the right to confront her accuser so she must be forced to court.
(It should be noted that the defense made the argument that if Aafia's ability to face her accusers is so paramount, why is this not applied to the "evidence" when those who accuse her of having this evidence are not being brought to court and so she has no right to confront them? However she still must be strip searched and brought to trial against her will for the sake of this same right?)
At the conclusion of the hearing, Aafia made one appeal to the public saying that she was for peace and wanted to help. She said that she was not against America and many injustices are being done to her. Many people in the audience cried as the U.S. mashalls again focibly removed her, physically pushing her at times.
The defense lawyers pleaded with the US marshalls and the MDC prison legal representative, Christa Colvin, to allow even a 5 minute meeting between Aafia and her brother but the US marshals refused. When her brother attempted to say a few words to her, the marshals turned Aafia's head away so she could not respond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
