Well, the jury rendered its verdict in the Portland bomb sting case today, convicting defendant Mohamed Mohamud of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. The jury deliberated for about seven hours, or about a full day. It's been a hectic day for me since the verdict came out, with a lot of media interviews, so I'm just going to sketch some early thoughts that I hope to flesh out over the next few days.
1) Does 7 hours count as a short deliberation? Maybe, but then again, the OJ Simpson double homicide trial spanned nine months and yet the jury reached its decision in only four hours. Certainly the jury could've spent more time. But it also could've returned a guilty verdict in, say, 30 minutes if it was hellbent on rejecting the entrapment defense.
2) What's the implication for pending domestic terrorism cases involving undercover stings? By my count, there are at least three pending cases like this one -- Sami Osmakac in Tampa, Adel Daoud in Chicago, and Mohammad Nafis in New York -- and the defense lawyers there have got to be thinking harder about trying to get plea deals now.
3) Could it have made a difference if Mohamud had testified? I'm sure the defense team thought hard about this and they no doubt had very good reasons for resting without putting Mohamud on the stand. But you have to wonder, if he had been able to make a good impression, could he have sold the entrapment defense to the jury?
4) What's the likely sentence? I'll go through the Sentencing Guidelines later, but in a similar case in Baltimore, Antonio Martinez got 25 years.
5) Was I surprised? Not really. If he had been acquitted, I would've been surprised, but not shocked (even though it would've been the first time that an entrapment defense would've worked in a post-9/11 terrorism case). I think the key government evidence was that before the undercover agents got involved, Mohamud tried to get in touch with someone the government described as a suspected al Qaeda recruiter.
Anyway, I'll expand these thoughts in subsequent posts.
The case was an easy sell to a jury. But does this prosecution make us safer from real terrorists? Not at all. Just a big waste of pubic money and resources on a guy who had no chance of being a public threat without the government's help.
Posted by: Allan L. | February 01, 2013 at 07:16 AM
I am not an attorney and this may come off as naive, but I certainly hope that his age at the time of the crime is taken into account during sentencing. US nineteen year olds are highly impressionable, and as Allan points out above, there is zero chance that he would have had the ability to commit the crime he was found guilty of without material assistance from the FBI.
Posted by: Will | February 01, 2013 at 08:06 AM
Allan, how can you say that?? This guy might not have been able to bomb something on his own, but he easily could have gotten a gun and harmed many people. His intent was bad, and we are safer that he is off the street.
Posted by: Stuart | February 01, 2013 at 08:28 AM
Stuart, he could have easily gotten a car and ran a red light too. Maybe he could have gotten a teaching degree and became a teacher, or an engineering degree and solved our fossil fuel problem. A lot of things could have happened. But the bottom line here is he would not have gotten a bomb if the government hadn't given him one.
Posted by: Jon | February 01, 2013 at 12:40 PM
No matter how many years he gets he probably will be going to Florence, CO Federal Admax.
This is where all the celebrity foreign and national terrorists and bombers serve their sentences.
I doubt he will go to a min or mod security federal prison. For his parents sake, I hope he does not go to Florence into his forties and beyond.
Posted by: Greg Miller | February 01, 2013 at 01:43 PM
Now if only the DOJ would go after some economic terrorists, and by that I mean the fraudsters on Wall Street and running banks. They seem to be getting a free pass.
Posted by: Lucas | February 01, 2013 at 02:49 PM