In a recent criminal trial in Virginia, the prosecutor told the jury that the defendant couldn’t be trusted to tell the truth, that he would lie to their faces – all because of his religious beliefs.
The defendant, an American citizen accused of supporting terrorism, was convicted. The religion in question, of course, was Islam.
Now, the Virginia attorney representing Ali Al-Timimi is pushing for a new trial, saying that prosecutors secured the guilty verdict by appealing to religious bigotry against Muslims.
The case illustrates the difficulty in prosecuting suspected terrorists who subscribe to a form of militant Islam, without airing tenets of the religion itself before a jury. And it raises the question of how far is too far when it comes to using a defendant’s religious beliefs as evidence of criminal intent. The issue will likely continue to confront judges as more cases against accused terrorists come to trial.
Timimi’s lawyer, Edward MacMahon Jr., is seeking to overturn Timimi’s conviction, citing prosecutorial misconduct and the prejudicial impact of statements he says portrayed Islam as a violent religion. One specific objection: that Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg instructed the jury in his closing argument that Timimi, a devout Muslim, would lie to jurors because the jurors were “kafir” – or nonbelievers.
Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia is likely to consider MacMahon’s motion when Timimi appears for sentencing July 13.
Kromberg declined to comment, citing Justice Department policy. Bryan Sierra, a spokesman for the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, said that department officials would not comment on a pending case. In a court filing responding to MacMahon’s charges, Kromberg maintains that Timimi’s personal religious views were “directly relevant” to the case.
“While such an argument may be unfairly prejudicial in a case involving a typical bank robbery, drug trafficking, or mail fraud, Timimi was charged with much different offenses,” the brief states. “In light of the charges against Timimi, the government’s arguments were directly relevant to his prosecution and fairly made.”
But Georgetown law professor and civil rights advocate David Cole says mere relevance may not be enough to justify repeated references to a Muslim defendant’s religion during trial. Federal judges should exclude such evidence if its value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant, Cole says.
“There has been a tremendous demonization of Islam since Sept. 11, and the sins of al-Qaida have been spread to Islam generally in popular culture,” Cole says. “The risk is that there is so much prejudice in the population at large that references to the Muslim faith end up clouding a jury’s ability to determine guilt or innocence.”
Over at Jihad Watch Robert Spencer describes the Virginia prosecutor’s claim as “entirely reasonable”.