At the risk of repeating Jodi, everybody has a right to self-representation. But most people who proceed pro se don’t quite know what they’re doing because procedure and substantive law are not things that most people really understand. So judges take special care with pro se litigants to ensure they get a fair shake.
Ideally, the justice system isn’t just a game of “gotcha.” If Moussaoui doesn’t quite know the difference between “no contest” and “not guilty” justice isn’t served by doing a “first’s count” and executing him. Especially in a capital case, a judge really bends over backwards to ensure justice is done.
Judge Brinkema should be commended for how she has handled the situation.
Depends on what you mean by “out to lunch.” I don’t think he’s insane, I think he’s a zealot with perhaps a tad of a persecution complex. But that’s what you’ll find with a lot of pro se litigants. I used to go to the Eastern District of VA courthouse on Fridays to observe a certain case. During that time I saw two other E.D. VA judges deal with pro se litigants. One was trying to sue Alexandria for an alleged civil rights violation and the other was trying to sue social services, his daughter’s school, and, well, pretty much everybody. Both of those litigants were perfectly sane but, guess what, they were men on a mission with a touch of a martyr complex.
The situations I observed were handled about the way Judge Brinkema has handled her case. They gave the litigants guidance (without giving actual legal strategy), some latitude, and let them have their say. It requires a great deal of patience and restraint. It is also a great strain on the judicial system, but that’s a price we pay.
By the way, don’t ever try to represent yourself. You will lose.
I’ve read a number of Slate commentaries on the trial. Massoussai obviously is a little paranoid. (And “little” in the sense of incredibly so.) He refuses to use the goverment’s lawyer or get one of his own. He demands to have a lawyer who isn’t certified by Florida. The Judge won’t let him do that because its stupid. He accuses the government of having hitment out to get him, including the government-appointed lawyers. He can’t or won’t even read “Trials for Dummies”, as near as I can tell. He keeps making motions completely irrelevant to the trial phase or the matter at hand.
In short, he;s a nutty zealot who thinks the men in black are out to get him.
I hope that, having read the subsequent posts in this thread, you are now hip to the circumstances under which a judge might refuse to accept your guilty plea.
I guess I’m a little disturbed at the tone of the OP, which at least has an inference that the judge acted in a completely unethical manner, considering that the posts following it, which did a good job of describing the reasons the judge was acting correctly, are followed by the roaring silence from the original poster as opposed to any kind of withdrawal of his speculations.
Great links, Phil. Note that your last link, the one about self-representation, has a hyphen at the beginning that the link-clicker will need to remove from his browser address box.
Everyone seems to be focusing on the plea itself, with regards to which posters have made the valid point that ZM appears to be making pleas that he does not understand. But the judge’s efforts to help him appear to go beyond that. According to CNN:
According to this, the judge is actively trying to prevent him from making any admissions that might hurt his position. I don’t think this is justified.
The purpose of trials should be to bring out the truth. Not legal gamesmanship. If ZM declares of his own volition that he has been part of this or that conspiracy, and hurts himself by it, he is, by his statements, helping to establish the truth about his involvement with Al-Qaeda. I can’t understand why a judge would try to stop him from doing this simply because he may be unaware of the consequences of his actions.
Izzy, that’s not what happened here. In any event, the purpose of trials is to uncover the truth. They weren’t at trial.
As the standby defense attorney said in your link, “What he’s admitting to is not consistent with what he’s charged with.” The facts that he admitted, that he is in al-Qaeda and knows who was involved in the attacks, is not the same as saying he conspired or participated in the attacks.
Effectively, he was pleading guilty to things other than what he was charged, and things that aren’t even necessarily crimes. The judge acted correctly.
I suspect what the judge is trying to do is protect the proceedings by limiting the number of incidents that can be brought up on appeal as reversible error.
Lots of people decide they’re going to defend themselves at trial or in legal proceedings. Then, later, when they’re sitting in jail, most of them realize how stupid that was. They then appeal and, as grounds for that appeal, argue that they didn’t make a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel; they didn’t understand what they were doing; they were prejudiced by certain actions – like stupid outbursts – that they didn’t know enough to refrain from making, etc. etc.
Any experienced judge will attempt to run tight proceedings and limit the number of ways the defendant can argue those proceedings were not fair or were, for whatever reason, erroneous. A wise judge will always have in mind, not just the proceedings in front of him/her, but the potential appeal of those proceedings. Sometimes this may look like giving a pro se litigant more chances than he or she deserves. But judges don’t like getting reversed on appeal, and they hate having to try cases twice because an appeals court sent the matter back. So if they have to bend over backwards in dealing with pro se people once, but by doing so they may avoid having to deal with them again after an appeal, they will do so.
You have to remember that the “legal gamesmanship” can and often does extend to an appeal, where the losing party (or convicted defendant) tries to poke holes in the process afforded to him or her in the lower court, in order to get a second bite at the apple. So while it may seem like “gamesmanship” now for the judge to give ZM lots and lots of legal rope to hang himself with, she may very well be attempting to prevent “gamesmanship” on appeal.
One thing I keep noticing is his aggravated disrespect for the judge. I don’t know how come he hasn’t earned himself a slew of contempt of court citations by now, since “contempt” (in the full sense of the word) is precisely what he keeps manifesting.
Has it occurred to anyone that his militant fundamentalist ideology is male supremacism on steroids, and that being tried by a woman judge is contributing to driving him around the bend? (Serves him right. Hah! Women rule!) He refuses to acknowledge her authority.
I agree that it would seem that his plea was not a true guilty plea to the crimes that he was being charged with. But if he admits that “he had been part of a conspiracy since 1995” it would certainly seem to have a bearing on his guilt or innocence in the the charges. This is the type of thing that a prosecutor might spend a lot of energy on trying to prove, in an effort to find some corroborating evidence to the central charge. So I don’t see why the judge should cut him off and direct him to take it up with the prosecutors as part of a plea deal.
Jodi, I could understand your point if we were discussing the legal aspects of the case. But I don’t see how this has a bearing on the factual aspects, e.g. admissions of guilt (to the extent that these are used as evidence as opposed to binding legal acts).
I understand that he is Morroccan. Obviously if he was part of al-Quada, he hung around with a lot of Saudis. Certainly in Saudi, but I think also in many countries in North Africa (I am not sure about Morrocco) being charged is basically equivalent to being found guilty, there is no real trial. Suggesting that you are not guilty may be a bad tactic that will only annoy the authorities. On my very limited knowledge, subsequent to your compulsory formal confession you might be allowed to make submissions to the effect that you didn’t do it, but they are only really taken into account in reduction of penalty.
I wonder if he doesn’t have some rather confused ideas along these lines, in which he thinks his best tactic is to formally confess (plead guilty), and that he will then be allowed to make out a case that he didn’t do it? A slightly twisted view along these lines would make at least some sense in relation to his position.
By the way, my sigline is a comment made in court by our very frustrated senior counsel about a litigant in person.
princhester, I advanced a variant speculation over here, speculating on the civil law angle. I do think that the media has been to quick to say "he’s nuts’ without taking into account possible background factors such as you have advanced.
Fair enough, and the prosecutors will be able to use his statements against him. But as for cutting him off, Jodi’s point about appeal is still germane. An argument can be made that, as he made the statements as part of a potentially defective plea, rather than as testimony as a witness, he did knowingly waive his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.
That’s a bit of hand-waving on my part; I have no idea if such an argument would fly. But if such or similar arguments would work, then a conviction based on the statements would be thrown out.
That’s what I was wondering, if he didn’t have the pleas confused with another legal system he’s more familiar with. Of course, this confusion won’t be cleared up that easily if he won’t talk to his lawyers. Speaking of, I heard that he requested a Muslim lawyer to help him with his case. Did that person take the case or is Moussaoui still doing everything himself?
The Muslim attorney has, thus far, failed to take the appropriate steps to represent Moussaoui. Since he’s not a member of the Virginia bar basically all he’d have to do is file a motion and find a VA attorney to sponsor him before the court.
The attorney has refused to do so and stated that the Brinkema was preventing him from representing Moussaoui because she is biased against Muslims. His argument is insultingly absurd. He ought to be ashamed.
Looks like a bit of a stretch, as you seem to acknowledge. My understanding is that in order to make a claim of 5th Amendment rights, he would have to show that there was some element of coercions by government agents that caused his testimony. Are you saying that because he was forced to enter some sort of plea, he was being forced to testify against himself? I’m no lawyer, but this seems dubious. OTOH, a lot of laws are dubious…
