No death sentence for Moussaoui
on May 3, 2006 at 5:02 pm
The Supreme Court on March 21 last year declined to hear the pre-trial appeal of Zacarias Moussaoui, the Frenchman of Morroccan descent who was the only person charged in a U.S. court with a role in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. (Moussaoui v. U.S., docket 04-8385). The following April 22, Moussaoui pleaded guilty to six terrorism conspiracy charges. That left only the question of whether he would be given a death sentence. The death penalty proceeding began in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., on February 6.
The federal trial jury hearing the death penalty proceeding against Zacarias Moussaoui declined on Wednesday to impose a death sentence. Here is the verdict form as filled out by the jury. It is 42 pages in length. It appears on the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Virginia’s website on the docket for the Moussaoui case, as entry 1852.
The verdict must be counted as a major defeat for the Justice Department in the highest profile case to grow out of the war on terrorism.
On pages 13, 27 and 41 of the vedict form, the following statement is repeated verbatim on each of those pages to indicate the sentencing reocmmendation on each of the three conspiracy counts carrying a possible death sentence (each of those pages is signed by the jury’s foreperson [Juror 0533]; the name is blacked out because this jury is anonymous):
“SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE.
“Based upon consideration of whether the aggravating factor or factors found to exist sufficiently outweigh any mitigating factor or factors found to exist, or in the absence of any mitigating factors, whether the aggravating factor or factors are themselves sufficient to justify a sentence of death, we the jury, do not unanimously find that a sentence of death shall be imposed on the defendant.”
On pages 12, 26 and 40, the places to indicate a unanimous verdict to impose the death sentence on any of the three counts, no signatures appear.
In recording jury votes on specific issues submitted to them, on the entries for mitigating factors as suggested by defense lawyers, no jurors voted to find that the defense had proved the following statement: “That Zacarias Moussaoui believes that his execution will be part of his JIhad and will provide him with the rewards attendant to a martyr’s death.”
A death sentence failed, a court official indicated after the verdict was announced, because the jury could not reach unanimity in favor of it. The official, however, did not say how the jurors had voted individually on the ultimate question, so it was unknown how far short of unanimity it was. (Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog contains a link to the video report on the official statement by the court’s spokesman.)
As a result of the Justice Department’s failure to obtain a death sentence, Moussaoui will be sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema has no other option. The District Court announced that the judge will impose sentence at 10 a.m. Thursday.
President Bush issued a statement Wednesday evening, saying the Moussaoui case was over but that the fight against terrorism would go on. The statement can be found here..
The jury had the option, if it could agree unanimously, of recommending a death sentence on Count 1, a conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism “transcending national boundaries,” Count 3, conspiracy to destroy aircraft, or count 4, conspiracy to use “weapons of mass destruction.”
For each, the form listed three statutory aggravating factors. On each, the jury had to be unanimous to find that factor to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It was unanimous in finding that Moussaoui had “knowingly created a grave risk of death to one or more persons in addition to the victims of the offense,” and that he had “committed the offense after substantial planning and premeditation to cause the death of a person or to commit an act of terrorism.” But it answered “No” on each on whether it unanimously found that Moussaoui had “committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner in tht it involved torture or serious physical abuse to the victim or victims.”
Among the non-statutory aggravating factors, the jury indicated it did not find unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt that Moussaoui’s actions “resulted in the deaths of approximately 3,000 people.”
On the mitigating factors pages of the verdict form, the jurors indicated how many of them had voted to find that the defense had established a factor by a “preponderance of the evidence.” It was on this part of the form, for each of the three counts, that no jurors found sufficient proof of a suggestion that Moussaoui believed his execution would make him a martyr.
As many as nine jurors (on Count 1) found that the defense had proved that Moussaoui an an “unstable early childhood and dysfunctional family,” and that his father “had a violent temper and physically and emotionally abused his family.” There were fewer juror votes on this point on each of the other two counts.No jurors found that the defense had proved that Moussaoui “suffers from a psychotic disorder, most likely schizophrenia, paranois subtype.”
Thus, the two most prominent features of the defense strategy — Moussaoui was seeking martyrdom, and he was in some way psychotic — drew no support from any juror. That result would appear to support a conclusion that the jury simply could not find a way, through all of its choices during seven days of deliberations, to reach unanimity to recommend a death sentence.
Three of the 12 jurors favored the defense on another significant argument: in sections in which the jury could write in any other mitigating factors found by at least one juror to have been proved by the defense on each count, three jurors each time endorsed this comment: “That Zacarias Moussaoui had limited knowledge of the 9/11 attack plans.” That was the only write-in finding in that section. Those three jurors thus were unpersuaded by Moussaoui’s attempts, when he took the stand, to make his role in 9/11 seem to be a major one. The other nine, though, may have been somewhat persuaded, or at least unwilling to vote against his claims.
