« LexPress: The Follies of Duane Hart | Main | LexPress: Spies Like Us »

LexPress: Warrantless Wiretapping Goes to Court

By Jesse Sunenblick
jsunenblick@judicialstudies.com
Posted: 03-24-08 

The Second Circuit today hears the appeals of two Muslim Albany-area men who were caught by an FBI sting and convicted of laundering money connected to an alleged terror plot. In other news, a new proposal aims at streamlining New York's town and village courts. 

THE PIZZA SHOP ROCKET LAUNCHER STING 
The National Security Agency’s use of warrantless wiretapping to fight the war on terror comes into focus today as the Second Circuit hears the much anticipated appeals of Yassin M. Aref, a Kurdish refugee from northern Iraq, and Mohammed M. Hossain, a U.S. citizen from Bangladesh. The Albany Times Union has the story. Both Albany-area men are serving 15-year sentences for money laundering after being caught by an FBI sting. The money — which was used to make improvements on Hossain’s pizza shop and the transfer of which was overseen by Aref, a local Muslim leader — was connected to an FBI sting involving a faux plot in which a rocket launcher would be used to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat in New York City. But the extent to which either man knew of the plot — and the methods the FBI used to draw both men into the scheme, which may have involved warrantless wiretapping and entrapment— galvanized Albany’s Muslim community and other sympathizers. “This is the single most important case I will ever have the privilege to argue,” said Terence L. Kindlon, Aref’s attorney. “A grave injustice has occurred, and it must be undone. It is my belief that the Bush administration exploited post-9/11 fear, cynically manipulated classified information, and misused prejudicial evidence to wrongfully convict two good and innocent men.”

DOUBLE DEATH    
Meanwhile, The New York Sun reports on the upcoming federal death penalty trial in Brooklyn of Gerard Price, a member of the Bloods street gang who in 2001 was acquitted in state court of the same crime — shooting a man in a housing project in 1999. The paper polls attorneys about whether the retrial of Price violates the Constitution’s ban on double jeopardy. Price’s case is one among many in Brooklyn that has judge’s questioning the government’s pursuit of the death penalty. The judge in the case, Nicholas Garaufis, has already asked the Justice Department to reevaluate its decision to seek the death penalty. “I think this would certainly be challengeable on federal constitutional grounds,” said Richard Dieter, the director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C. “He was dragged into court on that same set of facts and acquitted, and that's what double jeopardy is all about.” Added attorney Howard Greenberg, who defended Price in his state trial, “If ever a case cried out for federal prosecutors to take a pass on at least seeking the death penalty — never mind prosecuting the case — this is that case.”

AL CAPONE ON THE CURB
Moments after John White, the African American Long Island man convicted of manslaughter for killing his son’s teenage rival in a racially-tinged confrontation, was sentenced to two to four years in prison by Suffolk County Court Judge Barbara Kahn, the victim’s father controversially remarked, “Let's see what happens when Aaron White gets shot.” Newsday addresses the remark in an interview with the man, Daniel Cicciaro, and asks jurors for their opinion on the case. The White family has filed a complaint against Cicciaro, alleging his statement was a threat. “They’re gonna pick on every little sentence I say, and it just goes to show what kind of people they are. . . . They’re trying to degrade my family is what they’re trying to do,” Cicciaro told Newsday. Said one juror, Richard Burke: “I can understand a father losing his son and not seeing any type of justice being done. I don't care if it was Al Capone out on the curb that night. He [Daniel Jr.] still did not deserve to die the way he did.”

TWO TOWNS, ONE JUDGE 
Finally, The Elmira Star Gazette has a story about a proposed state law that would consolidate town justices in neighboring municipalities, a move aimed towards efficiency that has drawn criticism from those fearful about how judicial accountability would fare in such a streamlined system. The bill was sponsored by Republican state Senator George H. Winner, Jr., who chairs the Legislative Commission on Rural Resources. “This legislation would provide yet another available option for localities looking for ways to cut costs and ease the local tax burden,” Winner said. “We can't ignore the potential for local governments to take their own steps toward greater efficiency and cooperation.” Said Southport Town Justice Joseph Holly: “In the town of Big Flats, they are a busy, busy court, and we are very busy in Southport. It would be impossible for those to combine. . . . I figure I put in 35 hours a week in this court as a part-timer. I think it’s feasible in small towns . . . . Where it can be done, that's a good thing.” Added Chemung County Family Court Judge David Brockway, “My only fear is that it is expanded . . . fully consolidated courts in which the local electorate doesn’t have the ability to hold accountable local judges. . . . People still like control over local officials, including the courts.”

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

INSTITUTE FOR JUDICIAL STUDIES 299 BROADWAY / STE.1315 / NYC 10007 / 212-766-3201