Since Moussaoui was already in jail on 9/11, and Giuliani didn’t know anything about the 9/11 plot, only was one of many, many people who witnessed the aftermath, why did prosecutors trot him out on the stand? He never knew Moussaoui and only has read what many others have read about him, so what exactly does he have to do with against Moussaoui? Do they actually need him (or victims’ family members) to illustrate how horrible 9/11 was? It seems like some kind of cheap ploy to me.
Could one you legal type dopers explain to me what unique knowledge or information he possesses that requires his testimony at this particular trial?
Thanks for starting this thread. I confess to having had exactly the same thought when I read the BBC headline “Giuliani tells jury of 9/11 horrors”. What is special about his testimony? Can a court have a “taken as read” history of a crime, or do victims and involved parties have to give details every time?
IANAL, but I believe this is part of the victims’ impact statements that will be presented to the jury so they can make their decision on whether the death penalty should actually be imposed, since the first part of the trial already determined that Moussaoui was eligible for it.
He’s a well known and respected public figure who was an eyewitness to the events as they occurred, all aspects of the aftermath, and the strains it placed on the city in the months to come. The prosecution wants these wounds shown as they were when they were raw, and Giuliani (an ex-U.S. Attorney himself) is a good choice to do it. It’s unusual, but the so is the magnitude of the event.
I just don’t buy any of this. Didn’t we all go through this? Didn’t we see it every time we turned on the TV for a solid week? It’s trying to ramp up an emotional response.
Moussaoui is one of those people who should less be put to death than kept around to be interviewed by historians, investigators, & students of al-Qaeda. Yes, even though he’s a liar, who probably never even met Richard Reid (what kind of crap was that?)–that’s a useful thing to learn in itself. The plots he was involved are not ongoing, what threat is he?
He was in the city. He surely was an even-handed force when the city badly needed one. He is also the consummate politician.
Why not have one of the many people who actually streamed out of one of the Towers before they fell testify? The ex-Mayor may have been close, but he sure as shit wasn’ta victim of the attacks.
It’s dismaying to me that he did testify, because it sullies the process in the extreme. He testifed for reasons that serve his needs way ahead of reasons that serve the needs of the jurors listening to his testimony.
But New York City as a whole was certainly a victim, and so there is a logic to having the guy in charge of the city at the time summarize the damage done. From the CourtTV quote upthread it appears other victims will testify as well.
I think that the whole thing is ludicrous; Giuliani wasn’t a victim at all, any more than I was. Actually, he should be testifying FOR Massaoui, since the whole thing added to his stock. I would think that even a first year law intern could have kept his testimony out of court.
hh
I find this post to be utterly ridiculous. Giuliani was a victim at all? He was running a City that was badly hit, that killed many of the police and fire fighters that he knew, and he knows more about the attacks and their aftermath than almost anyone.
harry, I see by your location that you are in Oklahoma City. Do you think the attack there wasn’t felt by your mayor?
Remember, the trial is over. Now is the Death Penalty phase. It’s supposed to be emotional.
Mayor Guiliani started strong, but in his second term, he was a dictatorial emperor who would throw hissy fits when he didn’t get his way. Think DeLay light. Politically, the September 11 attack saved him. He responded firmly and quickly, much better than NY’s governor and the US president.
This is the victim-impact section of the trial… it is not the factual part… in fact it is MEANT to be emotional. When any trial moves to this part the victim-impact statements can often be horribly emotional to witness. I agree that it may be in large part a political move on his part but it is also a good move on the prosecution’s part. And bringing out emotions in this phase is, after all, what they’re being paid to do. He can offer a perspective that many other victims cannot (as to the particular ins-and-outs of the city-wide impact and the re-building nightmare and aspects that we as the public don’t see) as well as offering the personal perspective since he was personal friends with some who died. I believe that the prosecution would have put whoever the mayor was on the stand, even were he/she not considering a bid in 2008. Or at least someone from a city-wide perspective. He happens to be well-known and immediately associated with 9/11.
And he’s one of 45 (I think) victims to speak… he goes on early since his view is much broader than that of someone who ran from the towers or from someone who lost a close relative (husband, wife, son, etc.).
Why not call Afghanistan as a witness, then? They were definitely affected 1000 times more by 9/11, and definitely more directly than any mayor in the United States. Your post shows why the defense is doing such a miserable job. Maudlin sympathy/pathos/melodrama has no place in a courtroom. Also, can you tell me how my mayor was *victimized * by our terrorist attack? I don’t care to guess what his feelings were at the time. Who was OKC’s mayor then: I can’t remember. Do you? But our Governor did alright. His wife published a book, and he got reelected in 1998, so the tragedy didn’t affect him negatively, He wasn’t a victim, either. Should he testify *for * Massoui?
I have no problem with the beast (Massoui, not Giuliani-teehee!}getting a death sentence, but I think that we need to be realistic in our methods of doing it.
I think you’re missing the point of this phase of the trial. His guilt has already been determined.
During the death penalty phase, witnesses are called for emotional impact. Often the defendant’s mom or sister is called to the stand to make a teary plea for her son or daughter’s life. Do they have to have firsthand knowledge of the crime in order to testify? Of course not; they only need to have an emotional stake in the outcome of the trial. Ditto for Giuliani and whoever else the U.S. Attorneys see fit to park on the stand.
I’m certain the jury remembers pretty well what happened on that day, but the point now is not just to rehash events. The first part of the trial determined that, by lying to FBI agents in August 2001, Moussaoui was directly responsible for the death of at least one person who died at the WTC, so he is eligible for the death penalty. This phase of the trial is meant to “help” the jurors decide what punishment is appropriate, death or life in prison, and that’s why representatives for the victims get to speak now to the jury.
It’s no surprise that the prosecutors would like the death penalty carried out, and are calling witnesses now to give personal statements and (in some cases) pleas to the jury to decide in favor of it. And of course, Moussaoui’s defense are trying to portray him as a nutcase who shouldn’t be executed because he wasn’t (isn’t) in his right mind, and they will have witnesses supporting a life sentence.
What could make this part of the trial less than cut and dried is the fact that Moussaoui wants to die, since it would make him a martyr (at least, in his own eyes). And there are some family members of victims who want him to serve a life sentence, precisely to deny him the thing he appears to want most right now.
I’ll be interested to see how many family members actually get to argue in favor of a life sentence for Moussaoui, and whether the jury decides that that would indeed be the greater punishment.
I am an attorney, though I’m not involved in this trial in any way. There is a really good reason for Giuliani to testify. Under the applicable law, there are many factors the jury may weigh in determining if the death penalty should be applied, but those factors are specifically set out. The prosecutors seem to be focusing on one factor, whether the deaths Moussaoui could have prevented were inflicted in such a way as to cause unwarranted pain or suffering in the victims. The prosecutors, however, are also advancing a second theory under the statute, that the attack had the real potential of disrupting governmental authority and risked the lives of governmental authorities acting in their official capacity. Giuliani is a great witness to advance this aggravating factor.
BTW, the statute being relied upon by the prosecutors is 18 U.S.C. § 3593. The part about disruption of the government can be found in the prosecutions Notice of Intent found here. at paragraphs III (5) and following.
