US: The case against Zacarias Moussaoui is riddled with mistakes, says the judge. Denis Staunton reports
A federal prosecutor seeking the death penalty for self-confessed Al-Qaeda terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui has said there is no point in going ahead with the trial after the judge ruled that key prosecution witnesses are "irremediably contaminated".
Assistant US attorney Robert Spencer told judge Leonie Brinkema that her decision to make all evidence concerning aviation security inadmissible made the prosecution's task almost impossible.
"We don't know whether it is worth us proceeding at all, candidly, under the ruling you made today. Because without some relief, frankly, I think that there's no point for us to go forward," Mr Spencer told the judge during a conference call, according to the Associated Press.
Mr Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan descent, unexpectedly pleaded guilty to six counts of conspiracy related to the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks. He was in jail at the time of the attacks.
He claims he had no part in planning them but prosecutors argue that he should be executed because, if he had told investigators the truth about his terrorist connections, the attacks could have been prevented.
The prosecution sought to show that the FBI could have taken active steps to thwart the attacks and that aviation officials could have taken defensive measures if they knew the attacks were being planned.
Ms Brinkema ruled this week, however, that no testimony on aviation security would be allowed because government lawyer Carla Martin had improperly shared testimony and communicated with seven witnesses.
Ms Martin broke court rules by e-mailing witnesses about events in the trial and failing to advise witnesses not to follow proceedings in the news media.
She told defence lawyers that at least three federal aviation officials had refused to speak to the defence but none of three had been told of such a request.
Ms Brinkema accused Ms Martin of telling "a bald-faced lie" and said the prosecution case had been riddled with mistakes.
"I cannot allow that kind of conduct to go without there being serious sanctions. It would likely turn the criminal justice system on its head . . . I don't think in the annals of criminal law there has ever been a case with this many significant problems," she said.
A former flight attendant who worked at the Federal Aviation Administration before studying law, Ms Martin has almost no experience in criminal prosecutions and most of her work has involved defending the government in civil cases.
The Moussaoui debacle is the latest in a succession of mishaps for the government in high-profile terrorism prosecutions since September 11th, 2001.
Earlier this year, José Padilla, a New York-born Muslim who had been held without charge for almost four years, went on trial on relatively minor charges of conspiring to help terrorists abroad.
When Mr Padilla was arrested in 2002, former attorney general John Ashcroft declared that he had been planning to build a radioactive "dirty bomb" and explode it in the US.
Prosecutors failed to produce any evidence to support such a claim.
On numerous occasions, the wrong people have been arrested and accused of serious crimes, only for charges to be dropped after the government's case falls apart.
Ms Brinkema has suspended Mr Moussaoui's sentencing trial until next Monday and prosecutors are considering an appeal against this week's ruling on aviation security evidence.
Most legal experts agree that, without the aviation security evidence, the government will find it almost impossible to persuade a jury to sentence Mr Moussaoui to death.