If true, this story puts an entirely new spin on the mess that has pretty much decimated the government’s death penalty argument in the Zacarias Moussaoui case.
WASHINGTON — Lawyers for two airlines being sued by 9/11 victims prompted a federal attorney to coach witnesses in the Zacarias Moussaoui death penalty trial so the government’s case against the al-Qaida conspirator would not undercut their defense, victims’ lawyers allege.One of the airline lawyers forwarded a transcript from the first day of the Moussaoui trial to Carla J. Martin, a Transportation Security Administration lawyer, the victims’ lawyers, Robert Clifford and Gregory Joseph, claim.
Martin forwarded that day’s transcript to seven federal aviation officials scheduled to testify later in the sentencing trial of the 37-year-old Frenchman, in violation of an order by Moussaoui trial judge Leonie Brinkema.
Martin’s e-mailing of the transcript and her efforts to shape their testimony prompted Brinkema to toss out half the government’s case against Moussaoui as contaminated beyond repair.
And why might the attorneys for United and American have done this ?
They wrote [in a March 8th letter] [U.S. District Judge Alvin] Hellerstein (who is presiding over the civil trial in New York) that the government’s opening statement in the Moussaoui case “took the position that the hijackings were completely preventable and that gate security measures could have been implemented to prevent the 9/11 hijackers from boarding the planes had security been on the look out for short-bladed knives and boxcutters.”
“This stands in stark contrast to the position that has been repeatedly articulated by counsel to the aviation defendants in the September 11 actions.”
Because that government position could have “devastating” impact on the airlines’ defense in the civil suit, American Airlines’ lawyer forwarded the transcript to a United Air Lines lawyer who forwarded it to Martin, Clifford and Joseph wrote. As proof, they cited March 7 e-mails that they provided to Hellerstein but which were not immediately available here.
“The TSA lawyer then forwarded the transcripts and sent multiple e-mails to government witnesses in a clear effort to shape their testimony in a manner that would be beneficial to the aviation defendants” in the civil suit, they wrote.
This doesn’t mean that Martin’s actions are excused at all, but seems to clearly indicate that she was complicit with the United and American lawyers in an effort to shape testimony in the Virginia trial in a way that benefitted the interests of the airlines. Consider this from an email that Martin sent to one of the witnesses:
“My friends Jeff Ellis and Chris Christenson, NY lawyers rep. UAL and AAL respectively in the 9/11 civil litigation, all of us aviation lawyers, were stunned by the opening. The opening has created a credibility gap that the defense can drive a truck through. There is no way anyone could say that the carriers could have prevented all short-bladed knives from going through. (Prosecutor) Dave (Novak) MUST elicit that from you and the airline witnesses on direct”
If this is true, then it could be more than just Carla Martin who will be facing the wrath of Judge Leonie Brinkema
H/T to Michelle Malkin and more on this at Big Lizards and Wizbang
Technorati Tags: War On Terror, Moussaoui
