|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| MOUSSAOUI PLEA | |
 July 18, 2002  |
|
|
Accused Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui swears his allegiance to Osama bin Laden and attempts to plead guilty to federal charges.
|
|
 MARGARET
WARNER: Joining me to talk about today's dramatic developments are Philip
Shenon of The New York Times-- he was in the Alexandria federal
courtroom today when Zacarias Moussaoui tried to plead guilty; and Mary
Cheh, professor of constitutional law and criminal procedure at George
Washington University Law School. Welcome to you both.
Phil Shenon, beginning with you, take us inside the courtroom today. How did this unfold?
MARGARET WARNER: What exactly did he admit to?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| An attempt to plead guilty | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
PHILIP SHENON: This is -- this is nothing new in the relationship between the judge and Mr. Moussaoui. She repeatedly today had him take his seat over his protest. She did attempt to stop him at the moment he made these confessions about being a member of al-Qaida and being loyal to bin Laden. She did attempt to stop him and reminded him that anything he said in the court could and probably would be used against him later on. MARGARET WARNER: And did she also say something to him about, you know you shouldn't be giving away this guilty plea? I mean this is something you usually would negotiate.
MARGARET WARNER: Now, the wires had somewhat conflicting reports, but they both suggested that he said something like, well, I want to plead guilty because I want to save my life. Did he say something like that?
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| New restrictions on the death penalty | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
PHILIP SHENON: The Supreme Court, in a ruling this summer, placed new restrictions on prosecutors in use of the federal death penalty. They now require, or it's believed a clear reading of the Supreme Court ruling is that grand juries are required to make clear what are the aggravating circumstances that should make somebody eligible for the death penalty. The original indictment of Mr. Moussaoui was before the Supreme Court ruling; it did not include these aggravating factors. The new indictment, in just a few paragraphs, includes mention of the fact that these were violent deaths, that Mr. Moussaoui was clearly of age and that there was in effect torture involved. MARGARET WARNER: Now, he does have this stand by defense counsel that has been appointed for him, although I know he doesn't talk to them. What was their reaction to this?
PHILIP SHENON: There has been, Mr. Moussaoui has filed literally dozens, scores of motions with Judge Brinkima arguing his case in increasingly erratic tones. The tone of these motions is increasingly belligerent, increasingly insulting. And she said today that if he kept it up, she would seriously reconsider her decision to allow him to represent himself. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Representing himself | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
MARGARET WARNER: And then was the judge within her sort of rights and authority today to reject it at least for now? MARY CHEH: Yes, and I think it was very wise that she did so. An element of caution here is warranted because, as Phil Shenon pointed out, the erratic behavior of this defendant representing himself, the judge has to walk a fine line. He as a constitutional right to represent himself, but by the same token, she has to ensure that she doesn't allow him to go so far as to seriously create a situation where he's violating his own rights, in effect.
MARY CHEH: This is pretty unusual. I wouldn't be prepared to say it's unique, but it's quite unusual. First of all, in most cases, defendants want lawyers and have lawyers and need lawyers. And particularly in death penalty cases, it's important that they have lawyers. But he not only wants to represent himself, but now he wants to plead guilty, and he has a lack of appreciation of what he is forsaking both by representing himself and by pleading guilty or attempting to plead guilty the way he is. MARGARET WARNER: Now, she, as we heard Phil Shenon describe, she said to him," you take a week and think about it." But she has a lot of thinking to do, doesn't she, before the hearing next Thursday in terms of whether she will allow him or should allow him to enter this plea for himself?
MARGARET WARNER: Would that be the procedure if in fact she was having misgivings and again, as Phil mentioned, that she even mentioned that today, would she order this examination even before next week? MARY CHEH: She could. She could act on her own motion and have him examined again and have the defense and the prosecution offer up whatever additional evidence they think. And in consideration of his behavior, the motions that he's filed betray a certain lack of reality about the process and about the facts. If he's intelligent and he understands things, well, that's only one thing. He may not be able to fully appreciate the reality. He might be so imbedded in this notion that this is just a farce to send him to the gas chamber, as he has said, that he really can't appreciate sufficiently the circumstances that he's in. MARGARET WARNER: Now, let's say she determines that he's not competent and counsel is really appointed and takes this case on. Still, nonetheless, can the statements he made today be used in a trial against him?
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Accepting the plea | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
MARY CHEH: That's right. There's a federal rule, Rule 11, that requires that the judge fully determine that he's entering this plea knowingly and intelligently and voluntarily. She will go through a colloquy, a little discussion with him, explaining to him at length exactly what he waives and what he gives up by enter ago plea of guilty and the consequences of that. She'll make sure that it was voluntary. She'll ask him various questions and we had seen something of this with John Walker Lindh when she entered his plea of guilty, and you see this actually in all courts, to establish that there's a proper basis for him to enter that plea. MARGARET WARNER: Including going through each one of the counts and getting him to say guilty to each count?
MARGARET WARNER: So if he were then to say, oh, well, no, I'm not guilty of that one, then we'd be back to square one? MARY CHEH: Exactly. The judge won't accept a plea with all these qualifications and conditions. Now, there have been occasions where people can enter a plea as to some charges and then go to trial on the others. But he's not, it seems -- you know, one doesn't know -- but it seems as though he's not prepared to enter a guilty plea on the actual charges against him in that indictment. In which case, we're not anywhere. In addition, there are these aggravating circumstances that could lead him to get the death penalty. It's quite unclear to me that he's going to concede any of those if he wants to have a forum to try to save his life. MARGARET WARNER: And a whole separate trial on those? MARY CHEH: A separate proceeding. MARGARET WARNER: All right, thank you both, Mary Cheh, Phil Shenon, thanks. PHILIP SHENON: Thank you. |
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
PHILIP
SHENON: Well, it was the usual high drama from Mr. Moussaoui. He entered
the courtroom for what was supposed to be a fairly routine rearraignment
on a new indictment of him. Pretty quickly he made clear to the judge
that he was very unhappy about his treatment by her in a series of motions
he's made to the court. She asked him to enter a plea. He attempted
to enter a plea, a rather arcane plea in which he would apparently concede
to some of the charges against him but not others. 
PHILIP
SHENON: She refused to accept that plea, entered a plea of "not
guilty" on his behalf and very angrily he once again took his seat.
There was a lot of back and forth then about unrelated evidentiary matters
at which point Mr. Moussaoui then shot up from his chair, went to the
lectern and announced that he had decided to enter a "guilty"
plea and that he would accept responsibility for the conspiracy in the
September 11 attacks. 
PHILIP
SHENON: Well, we're not quite sure. He was, he repeated the claim he's
made in the past that he was not directly involved in the September
11 attacks, but he did announce in a very clear voice that he was a
member of al-Qaida and that he had pledged a loyalty to Osama bin Laden.
He seemed to be suggesting that he was indeed a terrorist, he was involved
in terrorist conspiracies, but perhaps he wasn't involved in this particular
set of attacks and that that's what he hoped to prove to a jury who
might spare him the death penalty.
MARGARET
WARNER: Now, I gather that the judge was very startled and tried to
stop him from continuing to talk and continuing to say things. Tell
us about that. 
PHILIP
SHENON: She said, you know, listen, Mr. Moussaoui, you know, trained
lawyers would know that you could become involved in negotiations with
prosecutors that could result in the prosecutors agreeing to spare him
the death penalty. He didn't want to hear any of this. He said he had
been thinking about this for months and again, in a very forceful, determined
voice he said he wants to plead guilty. She said she would give him
a week to think about it. He said he didn't need a week; he had already
made up his mind. 
PHILIP
SHENON: It's a little confusing to explain. We'll give it a shot. He
seems to be saying that he believes that Judge Brinkima, is about to
gag him, about to take away his right to defend himself in his own words,
and the only way he knows how to save his life is by pleading guilty
to these charges and then having a forum during the penalty phase, the
phase in which it's decided whether or not the death penalty is appropriate,
during that penalty phase, he will make his argument that indeed, while
he might be a terrorist, he was not part of this particular terrorist
plot. 
MARGARET
WARNER: Now, you mentioned earlier that he was coming in to plead to
a new indictment. And just explain why the prosecution felt it was necessary
to have a newly worded indictment here. 
PHILIP
SHENON: They were startled, but they, they were startled but they weren't
startled, you know. There's not much Mr. Moussaoui can do to surprise
them at this point. They are making the argument that he is indeed mentally
ill and what happened today in the courtroom, along with all the other
actions Mr. Moussaoui has taken in recent weeks, are proof that he should
not be permitted to defend himself. 
MARGARET
WARNER: Okay, Mary Cheh, now help us sort through all this as a legal
matter. First of all, is Zacarias Moussaoui totally within his rights,
representing himself in a capital murder case, to plead guilty? 
MARY
CHEH: Yes, he is in his rights and he can plead guilty. There's no specific
constitutional statement that he can plead guilty, but he's allowed
to enter a plea, and give up his defense. There has to be certain findings
though, that he's competent to do so.
MARGARET
WARNER: How unusual is something like this? 
MARY
CHEH: Well, the rules require that she satisfy herself that he's knowingly,
voluntarily, intelligently entering this plea, so he has to be competent
to do so. But what it may do is trigger for her, again, her second-guessing
of the original determination that he's competent to represent himself.
So she's probably analyzing whether it's appropriate now to reconsider
that decision and perhaps order another examination and another determination
whether he should represent himself.
MARY
CHEH: Those statements ordinarily could be made. Any time you make a
statement, no one's forcing him to make these statements -- he's making
these statements and they're against his interests. And they would be
admissible against him. There's only one sliver of possibility to keep
them out. There is a provision in the rule about pleading guilty that
statements made in connection with a procedure to plead guilty are not
admissible because we want people to be able to have a give and take
before they actually enter a plea. That's a bit of a reach, but you
know, thinking for the defense side, if I wanted to limit the damage
here, I would say, well, since he's representing himself, he doesn't
have a full knowledge of how the rules apply, he may have thought that
he was involved in perhaps negotiations to plead guilty, something like
that. But otherwise, these statements will hurt him. 
MARY
CHEH: Well, you know, in his case, it's, I think every appearance that
he's made so far seems to have this jack-in-the-box quality. You don't
know when or what is going to pop out. Given the way he behaved today,
I have my doubts that he's actually going to plead, enter a plea of
guilty to the counts against him because he wants to maintain that maybe
he's a member of al-Qaida, maybe he's involved, you know, in terrorist
activities, but he didn't involve himself in September 11. Well, that's
the essence of the indictment against him.