Muslim Jurors for 9/11 Islamic Terrorists
November 17, 2009
While it is widely assumed that any jury in New York would find the 9/11 terrorists guilty, especially given their previous confessions, it's within the realm of probability that a Muslim juror would vote to acquit based upon his/her loyalty to (or fear of) Islam.
Prior to November 5, 2009, who would have expected a U.S. Army Major to jump up on a desk at Ft. Hood, yell the battle cry of all Islamic Fascists, Allahu Akbar, and gun down more than thirty of his fellow U.S. citizens and soldiers?
According to his reported statements, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's loyalty was to Islam and Sharia, not to the United States or the Constitution he took an oath to defend and protect.
A Muslim juror might have the same loyalties, despite the oath he would take in U.S. Federal Court. Many Muslims believe that Islam and Sharia trump all else and justify deceiving "the Infidel".
During the voir dire, prosecutors and defense attorneys question potential jurors about their backgrounds and beliefs, in an effort to seat a jury capable of rationally analyzing the evidence and rendering an impartial verdict.
Each side has an unlimited number of challenges for cause. A challenge prevents a potential juror from sitting on the jury. Cause is defined as a lack of impartiality.
Muslims whose loyalty is to Islam and Sharia law could reasonably be expected to lie during voir dire about their impartiality in this case. The defendants are, after all, "soldiers of Islam" who struck a mighty blow against the Great Satan. In any case, a Muslim juror who votes to convict would become an outcast and a target for murder.
Click Here to Get Email Notifications of New Editorials. It's free, and we'll never sell your information to any other party.
Click here to visit our Store.
The prosecution and the defense each will have also a limited number of peremptory challenges (usually three, unless multiple parties are involved), which eliminate a potential juror without having to assign a reason for the challenge. One might assume, therefore, that the prosecution would exercise its peremptory challenges to exclude all Muslims from the jury.
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) prohibited prosecutors from excluding prospective jurors on the basis of race. Since that ruling, the Court has also forbidden peremptory challenges based on gender.
Further, the Court has ruled that exclusion of a potential juror based upon that person's race is a violation of his rights. In other words, not only do the defendants have rights, but prospective jurors do as well. In Batson the Court said: "Racial discrimination in selection of jurors harms not only the accused . . . [but also] the excluded juror. . . . The harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire community".
The 9/11 terrorist defendants may argue that they are members of a minority race, thus leaving a string of appellate courts to conduct anthropological studies to determine if in fact exclusion of Arab Muslims from the jury would constitute racially motivated peremptory challenges.
There's also a distinct possibility that the New York Muslim community, claiming racial discrimination, would demand representation on the jury based upon their rights under Batson.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet extended protection from exclusion from jury service based upon religion alone, in 1999 the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that prosecutors may not eliminate prospective jurors based on their religious affiliations. The ruling was based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. While the terrorist trials will be conducted in federal court, defense attorneys are nevertheless certain to object to and appeal any attempt to use peremptory challenges to prevent Muslims from sitting on the jury.
A study by Columbia University estimates that about 600,000 Muslims live in New York City. A certain percentage of them are U.S. citizens, and are therefore eligible to serve on juries. It is probable that a few Muslims will find their way into the jury pool and one or two might make it onto the jury.
The standard for a conviction in a murder trial is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and a unanimous jury vote is required to convict. It would take only one juror to vote not guilty in order for these admitted terrorists to go free.