MOSCOW, March 13 (RAPSI, Ingrid Burke) - Anonymity and other forms of jury protection requested by prosecutors would run counter to the principle that all criminal defendants are shrouded by a “shield of innocence” prior to conviction, a US court held Wednesday in the case against terror suspect Mostafa Kamal Mostafa (Abu Hamza).

Abu Hamza faces charges in connection with a 1998 hostage crisis in Yemen, the attempted establishment of a “jihad training camp” in the American state of Oregon, and the support of “violent jihad” in Afghanistan between 2000 and 2001.

Prosecutors moved in January for jury anonymity and various other forms of protection through the course of the upcoming trial, which will commence on April 14, and is expected to last for approximately six weeks.

Opining that the charges pending against Abu Hamza do not necessarily call for jury anonymity, the complaint states: “the government has provided no specific facts suggesting that such drastic measures are warranted; it has failed to establish that there is a strong reason to believe that the jury needs protection or that the defendant or this case presents a threat to the judicial process. Under such circumstances, the [relevant law] does not support the empanelment of an anonymous jury.”

District Judge Katherine Forrest noted in her decision that Abu Hamza was tried on incitement charges in the UK in 2005 and 2006. The jury was not anonymous in that case and no incidents were reported. 

“The principle that a shield of innocence surrounds a defendant extends back to ancient times,” the opinion states, noting that jury anonymity carries the risk of prejudice to the defendant, and threatens the presumption of innocence.

Despite these concerns, in certain rare cases the empanelment of an anonymous jury can be appropriate. Three factors are generally considered within the court’s judicial circuit in making such a determination, according to the order: the seriousness of the charges; the potential for corruption of the judicial process; and expectations of widespread publicity.

The prosecution memo had asserted that all three factors in this case weigh in favor of jury anonymity.

Judge Forrest saw things differently, stating that while the charges are serious and the case is likely to attract a great deal of media attention, these elements alone do not distinguish Abu Hamza’s case from other major trials coursing through the judicial district.

Furthermore, “the mere incantation of words such as ‘terrorist,’ ‘terrorism,’ ‘al Qaeda,’ ‘Bin Laden,’ and ‘9/11’ is insufficient to require an anonymous jury,” according to the opinion.

The prosecution failed to substantiate its claim that the judicial process faces any real threat, in the court’s view.

Referencing the fact that Abu Hamza previously stood trial without jury anonymity and without incident, Judge Forest agreed with the defendant’s sentiment that jury anonymity “would poison the atmosphere of the case and serve to bolster the government’s case by creating the impression that the defendant is dangerous and guilty, and that the jurors themselves are likely targets.”

The court further rejected the other forms of special jury protection requested by prosecutors, including the following requests sought in the prosecution’s January motion: the jurors should be kept together during court recesses, the US Marshals Service should either take the jurors to or provide them with lunch as a group on a daily basis throughout the course of the trial, and the jurors should be transported as a group each day by the US Marshals Service between the courthouse and an undisclosed central location from which they can depart separately.

Abu Hamza’s indictment alleges that he conspired with others in December 1998 to take a group of Western tourists hostage in Yemen. The indictment explains:  “On or about December 28, 1998, the hostage-takers stormed a caravan of sport utility vehicles carrying sixteen Western tourists and took the tourists hostage by use of force.” The Yemeni military then attempted to rescue the hostages, at which point the “hostage takers used the hostages as human shields and attempted to fight off the Yemeni military,” according to the indictment. Four hostages were killed and several wounded in the ensuing combat.

The indictment goes on to assert that Hamza conspired with others and provided material support for a “violent jihad training camp” in Oregon. These efforts included, among other things, the stockpiling of weapons and ammunition within the US. The indictment goes on to allege that Abu Hamza’s two co-defendants Oussama Abdullah Kassir and Haroom Rashid Aswat travelled to Bly, Oregon – telling individuals there that “they had been sent there by [Abu Hamza] to train people for jihad and to assess the suitability of the Bly, Oregon property for a Jihad training camp. [Kassir and Aswat] also both told individuals at the property that they supported [Bin Laden] and al Qaeda, and had received their own jihad training in Afghanistan.”

Abu Hamza is further accused of having provided and concealed material support and resources to terrorists facilitating violent jihad in Afghanistan, and that Abu Hamza conspired to supply goods and services to the Taliban in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
With regard to the latter, Abu Hamza allegedly posted messages on the Supporters of Shariah (SOS) website urging his followers to donate money, goods, and services to Taliban programs in Afghanistan. This activity is alleged to have occurred between Spring 2000 and at least September 6, 2001.

According to the ECHR judgment, Abu Hamza is a British national and was born in 1958. The judgment goes on to describe his myriad health problems, including: type-two diabetes, high blood pressure, poor vision in his left eye, no vision in his right eye, psoriasis, excessive sweating, and two amputated forearms. He gained notoriety with UK tabloids for the fact that he frequently sported a hook in place of one of his hands. The London Evening Standard reported in March, however, that Abu Hamza had received new plastic prosthetics after having been extradited to the US. The newspaper predicted that the taxpayer-funded prosthetics cost upwards of $15,000.