Legal News

Voir Dire Proving Tricky in Holy Land Foundation Case

By Dan Slater

Ghassan Elashi (L), CEO of the Holy Land Foundation and spokesman John Janney (R) speak with the media December 5, 2001 during a press conference in Richardson, Texas. (Photo by Ronald Martinez/Getty Images)

We don’t often cover jury selection here at the Law Blog, but voir dire in the Holy Land Foundation case has proven particularly interesting. Prosecutors, getting a second bite at the apple, are attempting to convince a jury in North Texas that the Holy Land Foundation funneled millions of dollars to Palestinian terrorists.

For background on the case, click here for a curtain-raiser by the Dallas Morning News. But briefly: The government alleges that from 1997 to 2001 the foundation sent more than $12 million to overseas charities, called zakat committees, controlled by Hamas. Some money went directly to families of suicide bombers, prosecutors say. Defense attorneys reportedly say their clients never funded Hamas and sought only to give much-needed help to Palestinian families battling crippling poverty caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Back to jury selection. A central question, reports the blog of the Dallas Morning News, is whether any juror has had negative dealings with Arabs or Muslims that might affect their ability to fairly decide the case. The responses varied quite a bit.

• When asked about where she lived, one woman reportedly said that her neighborhood was largely Middle Eastern. When asked by the defense attorney if she had negative experiences, the woman, choking up, responded, “I sometimes feel like a minority in my own community. I don’t want to feel that way, but sometimes I just do.”

  Can you put aside your views and give the defendants a fair trial, the defense attorney asked? “Probably not.” She was excused.

• An elementary school teacher reportedly told the defense that she would have a hard time putting aside her problems with how Islamic cultures tend to treat women. Could you make a decision on the evidence? asked District Judge Jorge Solis. “I guess I could,” she answered. The judge said he would decide on her status later this week.
• When asked what constitutes terrorism, a Vietnam vet said that throughout history it’s been a matter of point of view. “To the British, we were terrorists,” he said.
• When one woman was asked how she felt about potentially serving on a jury in a terrorism-related case, she said simply, “Oh my God.”

Voir dire is expected to last most of this week, followed by opening statements.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on September 15, 2008 (boomark / email).