Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 94 of 94
  1. #81  
    Moussaoui Asks to Withdraw Guilty Plea
    From Associated Press
    1:04 PM PDT, May 8, 2006


    Convicted Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui says he lied on the witness stand about being involved in the plot and wants to withdraw his guilty plea because he now believes he can get a fair trial.

    In a motion filed Friday but released today, Moussaoui said he testified March 27 he was supposed to hijack a fifth plane on Sept. 11, 2001, and fly it into the White House "even though I knew that was a complete fabrication."...
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Nonsense. The man is a wannabe. Life in prison will be the best thing that has ever happpened to him in his miserable life.
    Did I say wannabe? He has changed his mind; now he does not want to be.
    Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
    Monday, May 8, 2006, 12:41 PM PDT
    WASHINGTON (AP) Zacarias Moussaoui has said he lied on the stand about being involved in 9/11, and he has asked to withdraw his guilty plea.
    Now the question arises as to whether or not he would have recanted if he had gotten death or whether it is just life that he cannot stand.

    Another arises as to whether or not a court will elect to hear his recantation.
  3. #83  
    I think the chance of the court allowing Moussaoui to withdraw his guilty plea are slim & none. I believe his motivation to be getting additional publicity or that he has had someone explain the reality of serving a life sentence in a federal high security prison. The Colorado facility is not the Martha Stewart "camp" type of facility. There may also be something to the observation that he is disappointed by not going out in a flame of glory, i.e., being executed.
    Legalbeagle
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Moussaoui Asks to Withdraw Guilty Plea
    From Associated Press
    1:04 PM PDT, May 8, 2006


    Convicted Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui says he lied on the witness stand about being involved in the plot and wants to withdraw his guilty plea because he now believes he can get a fair trial.

    In a motion filed Friday but released today, Moussaoui said he testified March 27 he was supposed to hijack a fifth plane on Sept. 11, 2001, and fly it into the White House "even though I knew that was a complete fabrication."...
    Okay. Let's let him change his plea; then give him life for aggravated perjury.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Did I say wannabe? He has changed his mind; now he does not want to be.
    Now the question arises as to whether or not he would have recanted if he had gotten death or whether it is just life that he cannot stand.

    Another arises as to whether or not a court will elect to hear his recantation.
    I would guess he had been waiting to enter paradise.
  6. #86  
    TimesOnline
    Moussaoui spared death by secretly dissenting juror
    By Lee Glendinning


    Zacarias Moussaoui was saved from the death penalty by one secretly dissenting juror who pointedly refused to discuss the reasons for their disagreement.

    The account of events behind the door of the jury room at America's most high-profile terrorist trial was given by the foreman in an interview with The Washington Post.

    Moussaoui, 37, was jailed for life last week for his role in the September 11 attacks. He faced three terrorism charges on which he was eligible for the death penalty. He now has no chance of parole and an attempt he made to change his plea after the verdict has been refused by the Judge.

    A unanimous vote on just one of the three charges would have condemned Moussaoui to execution. The foreman said that, in a series of secret ballots, the panel voted 11-1, 10-2 and 10-2 in favour of his being killed by lethal injection.

    She said that the dissenter repeatedly held out on the first charge and never identified him or herself. On the third day of deliberations the process nearly broke down, the female maths teacher from Northern Virginia revealed.

    There had been repeated 11-1 votes on one charge, but because the ballot was anonymous, and the dissenter kept quiet, no one could identify who was responsible.

    She revealed that discussions among the jury appeared resolutely pro-death penalty, but every time they went to a vote, at least one person would veto the execution.

    "I felt frustrated," she said, "because I felt that many of us had been cheated by the anonymity of the ‘no’ voter.

    "We will never know their reason. We will never be able to hold their reason up to the light and scrutiny of evidence, fact and law," she said. April 26 was "a very intense day", she said...
  7. #87  
    Interesting that in these cases, the Jury is deliberately stacked with those that support the death penalty.

    They pre-screen, and any that do not favor the death penalty are thrown out.
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Interesting that in these cases, the Jury is deliberately stacked with those that support the death penalty.

    They pre-screen, and any that do not favor the death penalty are thrown out.
    I go back and forth on this. If the state decides the death penalty should be in play, they really can't have anyone on the jury that is against the death penalty as they would likely vote not guilty on the basis of sparing the defendent's life. On the other hand, it might be that pro-death penalty people are more likely to convict in the first place. Do we know for a fact that pro-death penalty people are more likely to convict?
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I go back and forth on this. If the state decides the death penalty should be in play, they really can't have anyone on the jury that is against the death penalty as they would likely vote not guilty on the basis of sparing the defendent's life.
    Remember that there are 2 phases to the trial. A juror could very well vote guilty, and then vote against the death penalty. Which is exactly what happened here, the only difference is the Jurur very obviously lied during the Jury selection about being FOR the death penalty.

    But was the Juror to blame for lying? Or was it the government's unjust question leaving the juror no choice but to lie?
  10.    #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Remember that there are 2 phases to the trial. A juror could very well vote guilty, and then vote against the death penalty. Which is exactly what happened here, the only difference is the Jurur very obviously lied during the Jury selection about being FOR the death penalty.

    But was the Juror to blame for lying? Or was it the government's unjust question leaving the juror no choice but to lie?
    no reason to suppose they were lying --- probably they believed correctly that his crime did not deserve death.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    no reason to suppose they were lying --- probably they believed correctly that his crime did not deserve death.
    Given the fact that he was already convicted of 9/11, your argument is that the juror believes in the death penalty, but does not think that this particular crime rises to the level such that it should be punishable by death?

    For real?
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Remember that there are 2 phases to the trial. A juror could very well vote guilty, and then vote against the death penalty. Which is exactly what happened here, the only difference is the Jurur very obviously lied during the Jury selection about being FOR the death penalty.

    But was the Juror to blame for lying? Or was it the government's unjust question leaving the juror no choice but to lie?
    I of course know about trials' two phases. I was thinking around the idea that pro-death penalty people being more likely to convict (potentially). The solution to that being that the jury pool be drawn upon again for the sentencing phase (I don't think I mentioned this intermediate step in my post). However, if a juror in the first trial thought there was a chance the defendant might be executed, they would be more likely to acquit.

    I haven't read the article, but from what you say, I think it was wrong for the juror to lie. It is like a judge who decides that his preferences overule the law. The juror's job is not to decide laws, it is to apply them.
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Given the fact that he was already convicted of 9/11, your argument is that the juror believes in the death penalty, but does not think that this particular crime rises to the level such that it should be punishable by death?

    For real?
    There are a lot of people here that think he shouldnt' be put to death.
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    There are a lot of people here that think he shouldnt' be put to death.
    Certainly, but people who also believe in the death penalty?

    If not now? When?
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions