New Law Blogs

Brinkema Sets Hearing in Terrorism-Related Case After Government Forces Her Hand

By Mary Jacoby

After abruptly canceling a hearing 16 months ago in a politically tinged terrorist-financing related case, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema has set a date to move forward on the long-delayed matter, her hand forced by the government.

On Tuesday the Eastern District of Virginia judge ordered an Oct. 29 hearing in Alexandria, Va., to consider motions in a criminal contempt of court case against Sami Al-Arian, a former University of South Florida professor who refused to testify before a federal grand jury in 2008 investigating alleged terrorist financing networks.

A confessed supporter of a Palestinian terrorist group, Al-Arian is a long-time target of the government. His claims he was being persecuted for his pro-Palestinian views had gained traction among activists.

After a major terrorism-support trial in Tampa in 2005, a jury acquitted Al-Arian on 8 or 17 counts and deadlocked on the others. He ended up pleading guilty in 2006 to one count of supporting Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a suicide bombing group. The government had contended Al-Arian was one of the U.S.-designated terrorist group’s main organizers. At sentencing the trial judge, James Moody, excoriated him as a “master manipulator” who had pulled the wool over the eyes of his many supporters.

A courtroom drawing of U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema. (Getty)

In hearings in early 2009, Brinkema appeared poised to dismiss the later contempt case against Al-Arian, expressing doubt about the good faith of prosecutors. Through his attorney, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, Al-Arian said prosecutors had informally promised him in the earlier plea agreement reached in Florida that he wouldn’t be forced to testify in any terrorism-related proceeding again.

The government strenuously disagreed. But in court, the judge appeared impatient at times with the prosecutor on the case, Gordon Kromberg, who had made intemperate remarks about Muslims that Brinkema had previously called “insulting.”

Brinkema scheduled a hearing for April 24, 2009, at which time she was expected to rule.  Then she abruptly canceled it, after Kromberg filed a motion recounting Al-Arian’s own words at his 2006 plea hearing in Florida.

In that 2006 hearing, Al-Arian told a magistrate judge under repeated questioning that he had no unwritten side deals with prosecutors about anything other than that he would be swiftly deported once all legal proceedings against him were over.

The plea hearing transcript undercut his argument that he had a side deal with prosecutors exempting him from future testimony, and apparently put Brinkema in a bind. She never ruled.

Then on Aug. 26, the government filed notice that it would appear in court to ask her to rule. “The United States Department of Justice and the United States Attorney have reviewed the status of this prosecution, and urge the Court to rule on the outstanding motions so that the prosecution can proceed,” the one-page notice read.

Two motions are outstanding – a March 23,2009, motion from Al-Arian to dismiss the case and a Jan. 27, 2009, motion for reconsideration from the government.

Full post as published by Main Justice on September 09, 2010 (boomark / email).