Lynne stewart trial verdict

The government is hoping that lawyers will now think twice before representing clients with unpopular views or related to unpopular causes. Members of the Guild, through its nationwide network of chapters, have also faulted the prosecution of Ms. Stewart based upon violations of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The National Lawyers Guild, founded in , comprises over 6, members and activists in the service of the people.

Its national office is headquartered in New York and it has chapters in nearly every state, as well as over law school chapters. Senate "Church Commission" hearings detailed in and that led to enactment of the Freedom of Information Act and other limitations on federal investigative power.

Support Independent Media. Get Involved If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us. Publish Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay. North Coast. This is the best we can figure out the timeline, from the Times and AP : The juror asked to write to the judge shortly after the February verdict, and then wrote a letter to the judge in March.

Then she met with Stewart's lawyer in April. The U. Attorney's office argues that the juror's allegations are "exceedingly vague" and "riddled with layers of hearsay.

Koetl has not ruled on whether or not the trial's verdict should be tossed. Sep 2, PM. Maybe she thought it was no big deal, maybe she thought it didn't really bind her, but she couldn't have believed that what she did accorded with what she agreed to, could she?

What is happening in this country? It's out of control. Since it's apparently open season on lawyers this week, where are all these commenting breast beaters when we find prosecutors have illegally put innocent people in prison on fabrications, extortion and evidence tampering, or witholding evidence? I haven't read the transcripts and am not qualified to give an opinion on the case. What I do know is that the comment by Pat White above was completely subjective and told no facts of the case.

Bubbles are pretty but what evidence is there? And how was it obtained? Is there a synopsis somewhere that lists the facts and spares the bellicosity? I don't know if the lefties hereabouts are really interested in Stewart's guilt. They're interested in making sure she gets to continue doing what she was convicted of doing.

In other words, she did it and lefties are glad. In response to the previous request for a synopsis etc. It is a good resource for ongoing information about the case, including court transcripts. In his honor, let us not ignore prescient comparisons being made between McCarthyism in the 50s and current government forces fueling such "witch hunts" against Lynne Stewart and other defense lawyers whose "calling" is to defend "unpopular" clients.

But it is simply not the case that there are afoot "'witch hunts' against Lynne Stewart and other defense lawyers whose "calling" is to defend "unpopular" clients" - there are indeed hundreds of attorneys doing just that all the time today, and while they are not popular with everyone, they get to keep doing their jobs without being put in jail. The sky isn't falling because this attorney is found guilty of the charges against her - which were not, we recall, representing a Muslim radical, but assisting him in violating the rules of his detainment, and doing so, as she freely admits, for political reasons to keep his name in the press, because it was all a political frameup, etc.

There has to be a difference between being an actually progressive person and being a quack e. The guilty verdict came after a trial that lasted an unusually long seven months. The jury deliberated for a total of 13 days over a one-month period before pronouncing Stewart guilty on all five counts on February She faces up to 30 years in prison on charges including conspiracy to provide and conceal terrorist activity, providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and making false statements by promising to uphold various administrative rules.

Under rules for those convicted of a felony, Stewart was immediately disbarred. She was allowed to remain free on bond, pending sentencing on July The ominous-sounding charges of which Stewart was convicted all flowed from one thing—her effort to defend her client. Stewart never engaged in or planned terrorist activity. The only argument used by the government was that she had promised to abide by extraordinary restrictions barring any communication by her client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, with the outside world.

Abdel Rahman is the blind Egyptian cleric currently serving a life term after being convicted of conspiracy to blow up various New York City landmarks. Convicted along with Stewart in the current trial were her co-defendants—Ahmed Abdel Sattar, who had worked as a paralegal on the case involving Abdel Rahman, and Mohammed Yousry, the interpreter in the work with Abdel Rahman.