CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

September 26, 2009

NEVER EVER TALK TO POLICE WITHOUT A LAWYER

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , , , — johntfloyd @ 4:45 pm

Recent Terrorism Related Arrests Illustrate Need to Consult Lawyer Before Interviewing with Law Enforcement

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

This legal maxim is rooted in the very soul of every criminal defense attorney. Even if an individual is innocent, no one should ever talk to the police once the police make it clear they are investigating a crime, or a potential crime, and they feel the individual has either some involvement or knowledge about the crime. This advice is especially true when it comes to the FBI whose agents are skilled in the art of interrogation and proficient at tricking a person into making a false statement.

This FBI strategy was recently highlighted in a suspected al-Qaeda terror plot involving Najibullah Zazi, a lawful permanent resident of the United States who hails from Afghanistan. News media reports, based on official accounts or leaked accounts by the FBI, have linked Zazi and at least three other Denver-area men, along with a number of suspected or unknown individuals in New York and other cities in the United States, with an alleged al-Qaeda plot to use hydrogen peroxide bombs carried in backpacks to attack New York City’s mass transit system or other mass transit systems in this country.

(The following fact pattern is taken from FBI affidavits, which are notoriously one-sided, and news reports and may be incorrect, misleading or wrong. These men are presumed innocent and the use of these facts in this article is for illustrative purposes only.)

Zazi and his father, Mohammed Zazi (a naturalized U.S. citizen from Afghanistan), and a New York City imam named Ahmad Wais Afzali (also a lawful permanent U.S. resident from Afghanistan) were arrested on September 19, 2009 by the FBI for allegedly making false statements to federal agents in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001(a)(2). The “false statement” charges indicated that the FBI, and Homeland Security agents, had not yet compiled enough evidence to bring terror-related conspiracy charges under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371 or specific acts of “international terrorism” under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2331(1) against anyone they suspect were involved in the alleged New York City mass transit terror plot. The government has since indicted Najibullah Zazi on terrorism related charges. (more…)

August 23, 2009

2009 CAIR AWARD: ASSISTING THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY

Pro Bono Legal Representation in Voluntary Interviews, Profiling by FBI

By: John Floyd, Houston Criminal Defense Attorney

On August 15th, 2009, I received an award in recognition of my pro bono work for the Muslim community in Houston. CAIR-TX, Houston Chapter, presented the award upon which was inscribed: “In Recognition of: His personal dedication and committed assistance in providing protection to our community from undue harassment from federal agencies.” The award came after years, and hundreds of hours of pro bono work, representing individuals targeted under the Department of Justice’s voluntary interview program. In almost every case, these individuals were targeted for interview simply because of their religious beliefs, places of worship or country of origin and were not suspected of any criminal activity whatsoever. The voluntary interview program is simply an intelligence gathering effort designed to collect data about the Muslim community in hopes of preventing future acts of terrorism.

Sometime in 2004, I was approached by a fellow lawyer who had been offering his services pro bono to represent individuals targeted for “voluntary” interviews by the FBI and other agencies comprising regional Joint Terrorism Task Forces. He needed some criminal expertise and hoped I could help in what a growing problem in the Muslim community. As I soon realized, the term “voluntary” was somewhat misleading. Voluntary meant you were not under arrest, were probably not the target of a criminal investigation, and could refuse the interview. But, in practical and emotional terms, the process was hardly voluntary.

The agents would approach unsuspecting people at their homes and request entry to ask a few questions. As most legally untrained and intimidated people would do, the agents were allowed in and would begin to ask questions. If the interviewee began to feel uneasy, scared or insulted by the questions and refused to answer, or was intelligent and asked for a lawyer, the agents would persist, normally invoking the old reliable police tactics of “if you don’t have anything to hide or if you haven’t done anything wrong, you don’t need a lawyer and should talk with us.” If the person had resolve and refuse to talk, agents would threaten to begin interviewing neighbors, friends, family and even employers, knowing these threats would normally coerce compliance.

The interviewing agents were sometimes aggressive, insulting and asked questions contrary to the letter and spirit of the principles set out in our great Constitution. It was a new McCarthyism, but this time Big Brother was focused on the Muslim community and, after 911, nobody seemed to care. The common response to these abuses, and other Bush era tactics of terror mongering and the “you’re either with us or against us” propaganda, was fear inspired complicity. (more…)

March 5, 2009

UN-INDICTED CO-CONSPIRATOR(S): AN UNNECESSARY STIGMA

Filed under: Anti-Terrorism Lawyer — Tags: , , , — johntfloyd @ 6:09 am

The Right Wing and the Council on American-Islamic Relations; No Due Process for the Unindicted

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

What exactly is a un-indicted co-conspirator?

Attorney Peter R. Rient defined the term as any person the Government alleges “agreed with others to violate the law but who is not charged with an offense and who, consequently, will not be tried or sentenced for his criminal conduct.” 1/

While the “un-indicted co-conspirator” designation may not have immediate legal consequences, it definitely has long term social consequences. As Ira P. Robbins, Bernard T. Welsh Scholar and Professor of Law and Justice, has written: “Although a criminal defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty and has a Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, these procedural protections do little to shield an individual who is identified as an unindicted co-conspirator. Because trials focus on the guilt or innocence of the indicted individuals, the practice of naming an individual as an unindicted co-conspirator in effect accuses the person of a crime without providing him or her with a forum for seeking vindication. Thus, the practice routinely results in injury to their reputations, lost employment opportunities, and a practical inability to run for public office.” 2/

Three decades earlier the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Briggs came to much the same conclusion: “”[t]the grand jury that returns an indictment naming a person as an unindicted conspirator does not perform its shield function [protecting the innocent] but does exactly the reverse. If the charges are baseless, the named person should not be subjected to a public branding, and if supported by probable cause, he should not be denied a forum.” 3/

That’s precisely what happened to some of the nearly 300 individuals or entities named as un-indicted co-conspirators in the “Holy Land Foundation terrorism case” tried in Dallas last year. One of the groups named as an un-indicted co-conspirator was the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). This group found itself in the Government’s cross hairs after one of the Holy Land leaders, Ghassam Elashi, who founded the Texas chapter of CAIR and chaired on the Holy Land Foundation, was indicted on terrorism related charges. (more…)

Powered by WordPress © 2009 John T. Floyd III All Rights Reserved:Webmaster Kevin Grey Lee