The Protected Free Speech Defense
The terrorism trial of Tarek Mehanna has been going on in Federal District Court in Boston for about a month now. (Find my prior blog posts on the trial here.) Jay Carney, Jr., and the rest of the defense team, have built their defense to charges of supporting Al Qaeda around the First Amendment right to free speech. While the defendant might have said, written, posted, blogged and translated some items that most Americans would find repugnant, the Bill of Rights specifically protects the right of any American to do just that. The defense contends that none of these ideas were ever put into action and therefore can't constitute criminal conduct.
I will admit that, when the trial first started, I thought this defense was a long-shot. Surely the prosecution would present evidence of actual deeds that would puncture the credibility of the free speech defense. As the trial progressed, however, I was struck by just how little of the government's evidence went beyond texts, translations and conversations. Maybe they could pull off this defense, after all.
There is the sticky situation of Mehanna's trip to Yemen, allegedly to receive terrorist training. The defense that he was simply seeking to further his religious studies rings quite hollow. There doesn't seem to be much more than this, though, in the "smoking gun" department. It seems as if the authorities only managed to pulled off of his computer text files and emails. That is, they have a seemingly endless supply of hateful and desperate speech... but it's still all speech.
Was the Speech Dangerous?
The protections of speech, even political speech, do have their limits. If the speech was intended to and/or could reasonably be expected to incite violence, the state interest in preventing that violence trumps the right to the speech. While the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the speech in this case was too dangerous to permit, the true burden is not so cut-and-dried. The easy solution for the jury is to accept the prosecution's assertion that this kind of vitriolic America-bashing is dangerous and should not be permitted. As such, it is incumbent upon the defense to reassure the jurors that there is no link between this kind of speech and an actual threat to their lives, their safety and their way of life.
That is, the defense needs the jurors to conclude that this speech is not dangerous. The defense needs the jurors to understand that Tarek Mehanna can believe everything he wrote and said and still not be a threat.
Should the Defendant Take the Stand?
This brings us to the very tricky question of whether Tarek Mehanna should take the stand in his own defense. The last time I wrote about this question, it was in the context of the Edward Fleury trial (Fleury had organized a gun show at which a young boy had accidentally shot himself to death with an Uzi submachine gun). There is an added twist to this strategic decision in the Mehanna trial. The whole defense is premised on the proposition that nothing Mehanna has said is dangerous. He need not renounce any of his writings because the Constitution protects his right to express his views. Most importantly, those views did not spur either Mehanna or his compatriots to violence. That is, the defense needs the jury to conclude that Mehanna's speech is innocuous.
While a jury is always instructed not to conclude anything about a defendant's guilt or innocence from his choice not to testify, we know from ample empirical research that jurors always draw inferences from this decision. It will be particularly difficult for jurors in this case to ignore a decision by Mehanna's defense team to have him not testify in his own defense. How is a juror to conclude that Mehanna's speech is harmless if he is not willing to take the stand and defend that speech himself? If Mehanna is afraid of the consequences of speaking his views in open court, perhaps the jurors have reason to fear that speech, too.
So, the defense confronts a very real dilemma. Can the defendant simultaneously assert his FIrst Amendment right to free speech and his Fifth Amendment right not to speak at all?
According to media sources, the defense is scheduled to rest its case later this week. That suggests to me that Mehanna will not testify in his own defense. Such a choice is a gamble in this case -- perhaps more so than in a typical case -- but I can certainly understand the defense team going in that direction. Perhaps it is a better bet that jurors will properly internalize the burden of proof on the government here than that Mr. Mehanna can avoid saying something incriminating on the stand under cross-examination. The remainder of the case certainly holds its share of suspense.
Recent Jury Box Blog Entries
Showing posts with label terror management theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terror management theory. Show all posts
Monday, December 12, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
Jurors as Interpreters: When Facts Aren't Facts
The Interpretive Role of the Jury
The Tarek Mehanna Terrorism trial is compelling drama, revealing about our homeland security efforts, and instructive about America's uneasy relationship with Islam. It is also a case that implicates some of the more fascinating and troubling aspects of the American Jury System.
In our USC Interdisciplinary Law Review article, "And So Say Some of Us...: What to do When Jurors Disagree," we begin with the premise that, in a large number of criminal cases that actually go to trial, material questions are put to jurors about which reasonable people could disagree. That is, the failure to reach unanimous consensus does not represent a failure of comprehension or duty on the part of jurors, but rather follows naturally from the fact that jurors are often asked to resolve difficult interpretive questions, to which there are no right answers.
The most obvious and ubiquitous of these questions is whether the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Because there exists no objective definition of reasonable doubt, and the courts have steadfastly refused to provide one, each juror is free to decide for herself how much doubt is reasonable. In addition, even for those jurors who share interpretations of this standard, their natural inclinations to weigh evidence differently, and view witnesses as more or less credible, can result in differing conclusions about whether the state's burden of proof has been met.
This is, however, only one example of the kind of interpretive question jurors are asked to resolve as part of "finding the facts." Mens Rea requirements provide another obvious example, as jurors are asked to decide, as ostensibly a factual matter, whether the defendant possessed a certain state of mind at the time of the commission of an unlawful act. Was there "malice aforethought"? Was the assailant "reasonably" afraid for his own life? Was he "under the substantial influence or control" of another person? Were the consequences of his actions "reasonably foreseeable" by the defendant? These are all interpretive questions. Any two people who hear testimony in the same case could reasonably disagree about the "right" answers to such questions.
When is Free Speech Too Costly?
There are two major interpretive questions facing jurors in the Tarek Mehanna trial. The first one is whether the kind of material being posted on Mehanna's website, and being espoused by the defendant in direct conversations with others, is protected by the First Amendment's free speech provision. On the one hand, it is clearly political speech, which entitles it to heightened consideration for protection. On the other hand, we all have heard that the First Amendment does not provide the right to cry "Fire!" in a crowded movie house. That is, one is not Constitutionally permitted to use speech to endanger the public safety. The question in this case might be summed up succinctly by asking whether it is Constitutionally permissible to cry "Jihad" in a crowded mosque.
The defense team in the Mehanna case has requested that the jury be instructed about First Amendment free speech rights in advance of trial testimony. Their proposed instruction includes language about this fine line between political dissent and a call to arms:
To the extent that the jury is willing to see this case as a referendum on free speech (Let's not forget that Mehanna is also accused of plotting a terrorist attack on a U.S. shopping mall and seeking jihadist training in Yemen), the jurors will have to wrestle with several concepts without obvious objective meanings. What does it mean to "direct" someone to violence? Does it have to be targeted at a specific person or group of persons? Does the "director" have to advocate a particular form of violence, or is general approbation of violence sufficient? What constitutes "imminent" lawless action? Within a week? A month? A year? Does it matter if the perpetrator knows whether his words will actually convince anyone to do anything?
Finally, there is the very open-ended question of how "likely" his words are to incite actual action. Each juror would seem free to decide for herself how effective Mehanna's words would have to have been in order to nullify his First Amendment protection. If there were a 5% chance that someone would engage in criminal behavior as a result of Mehanna's exhorting, has he crossed the line? A 1% chance? A 25% chance? How likely is "likely"? Is it a sliding scale, depending on how devastating we fear the "incited action" might be?
Is there such a thing as Immaterial Support?
The second major interpretive question facing the jury in the Tarek Mehanna trial is whether speech can constitute "material support"? Everyone agrees that arming a terrorist organization, providing manpower for its efforts, or giving it money all count as providing that organization with material support.
The prosecution in this case contends, however, that Mehanna provided material support to the recruiting and propaganda efforts of Al Qaeda, simply by translating documents into English and posting them on his website.
In the jury instruction on material support, requested by the defense, material support can be in the form of "... service, including ... expert advice or assistance..." According to the requested instruction,
I would imagine that the prosecution would vigorously dispute this interpretation of the statute. I do not know how Judge O'Toole has ruled on this question.
Even should this wording be used, there remains an open question of whether Mehanna's efforts were pursued "in coordination with" Al Qaeda. While it is not clear that Mehanna had direct contact with Al Qaeda members, he does seem to have had a great deal of contact with people who were themselves connected to Al Qaeda. So, how orchestrated must Mehanna's efforts have been to be considered "in coordination with" Al Qaeda?
Consider the question of approval. Suppose the prosecution could show that approval for Mehanna's efforts were posted on official Al Qaeda websites. Once Mehanna knows that Al Qaeda is aware of his actions, does he consider them coordinated?
The Law/Fact Distinction: A Convenient Legal Fiction
I have identified above two clearly interpretive questions that the jury in the Mehanna case must address as it considers its verdicts. While the questions in this case are particularly "juicy", such interpretive issues permeate all the jurors do. While it is convenient to characterize the jury as the "arbiters of the facts" and the judge as the "arbiter of the law," the distinction really does not exist. Judges make factual determinations as "rulings of law" all the time. Similarly, jurors are constantly asked to give meaning to legal terms that are ambiguous, at best.
This is not a bad thing. It provided the avenue through which a jury can act as the "conscience of the community." The jurors interpret the legal language through the lenses of the times and circumstances in which they are living.
Such a realistic understanding of what jurors do should also inform our appreciation for what jury consultants do. Some would argue (never anyone who has worked with one of us, of course) that we try to "twist the minds" of jurors. We "pervert the facts" and "manipulate the process." This is utter nonsense.
We are not lawyers. As such, we need not give even lip service to the artificial law/fact distinction. As students of human behavior, we have always understood that jurors are engaged in a difficult, sometimes subtle, and poorly guided interpretive process. With a wide spectrum of legitimate interpretations from which to choose, a juror is constantly looking for clues, for guidance, for help in understanding how to best do her job. Sometimes, her first question is simply, "How do I begin?"
We trial consultants work for clients. We try to help our clients win their cases. So, none of us would argue that we don't have an interest in the outcome of a case. I can't speak for other members of the profession, but, I can confidently say that I have never worked on a case where I thought my client shouldn't win. This is because every case is a close call. Every case relies on jurors' interpretation of testimony and evidence and the meaning of the laws they are asked to apply. In every single case I have worked on, there was a very plausible interpretation of these factors that favored my client. And, of course, in very many of them, there was a plausible set of interpretations that favored the other side.
That is why we were in court, in the first place.
What will the Mehanna jurors do?
I know how I would probably resolve the interpretive issues in the Mehanna case, although I allow for the possibility that I might feel differently were I on the jury, seeing only what the jury sees. For reasons I have enumerated before, many having to do with Terror Management Theory, I also have expectations about what the final verdict will be in this case. That said, I don't know with any certainty how the individual jurors will handle the specific interpretive questions I identify here. There are no right answers, only opinions. And juror opinions never cease to surprise me.
It is very unfortunate that parties are not permitted to interview jurors in Massachusetts after they have rendered verdicts. I think it would be fascinating to learn how these jurors tackle their interpretive dilemmas. Which words will they key in on? Which definitions will prove compelling? Will they reach the same verdict for different reasons? Will the task simply prove too big for some of them?
I only hope that Judge O'Toole will treat their task with great respect. I hope that when they seek guidance, he does not simply resort to rereading the jury instructions to them. I hope that, maybe just for once, the law/fact distinction can be set aside in the interest of justice.
The Tarek Mehanna Terrorism trial is compelling drama, revealing about our homeland security efforts, and instructive about America's uneasy relationship with Islam. It is also a case that implicates some of the more fascinating and troubling aspects of the American Jury System.
In our USC Interdisciplinary Law Review article, "And So Say Some of Us...: What to do When Jurors Disagree," we begin with the premise that, in a large number of criminal cases that actually go to trial, material questions are put to jurors about which reasonable people could disagree. That is, the failure to reach unanimous consensus does not represent a failure of comprehension or duty on the part of jurors, but rather follows naturally from the fact that jurors are often asked to resolve difficult interpretive questions, to which there are no right answers.
The most obvious and ubiquitous of these questions is whether the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Because there exists no objective definition of reasonable doubt, and the courts have steadfastly refused to provide one, each juror is free to decide for herself how much doubt is reasonable. In addition, even for those jurors who share interpretations of this standard, their natural inclinations to weigh evidence differently, and view witnesses as more or less credible, can result in differing conclusions about whether the state's burden of proof has been met.
This is, however, only one example of the kind of interpretive question jurors are asked to resolve as part of "finding the facts." Mens Rea requirements provide another obvious example, as jurors are asked to decide, as ostensibly a factual matter, whether the defendant possessed a certain state of mind at the time of the commission of an unlawful act. Was there "malice aforethought"? Was the assailant "reasonably" afraid for his own life? Was he "under the substantial influence or control" of another person? Were the consequences of his actions "reasonably foreseeable" by the defendant? These are all interpretive questions. Any two people who hear testimony in the same case could reasonably disagree about the "right" answers to such questions.
When is Free Speech Too Costly?
There are two major interpretive questions facing jurors in the Tarek Mehanna trial. The first one is whether the kind of material being posted on Mehanna's website, and being espoused by the defendant in direct conversations with others, is protected by the First Amendment's free speech provision. On the one hand, it is clearly political speech, which entitles it to heightened consideration for protection. On the other hand, we all have heard that the First Amendment does not provide the right to cry "Fire!" in a crowded movie house. That is, one is not Constitutionally permitted to use speech to endanger the public safety. The question in this case might be summed up succinctly by asking whether it is Constitutionally permissible to cry "Jihad" in a crowded mosque.
The defense team in the Mehanna case has requested that the jury be instructed about First Amendment free speech rights in advance of trial testimony. Their proposed instruction includes language about this fine line between political dissent and a call to arms:
"[T]he right to free speech includes the right to advocate force or violence, unless the speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action."
To the extent that the jury is willing to see this case as a referendum on free speech (Let's not forget that Mehanna is also accused of plotting a terrorist attack on a U.S. shopping mall and seeking jihadist training in Yemen), the jurors will have to wrestle with several concepts without obvious objective meanings. What does it mean to "direct" someone to violence? Does it have to be targeted at a specific person or group of persons? Does the "director" have to advocate a particular form of violence, or is general approbation of violence sufficient? What constitutes "imminent" lawless action? Within a week? A month? A year? Does it matter if the perpetrator knows whether his words will actually convince anyone to do anything?
Finally, there is the very open-ended question of how "likely" his words are to incite actual action. Each juror would seem free to decide for herself how effective Mehanna's words would have to have been in order to nullify his First Amendment protection. If there were a 5% chance that someone would engage in criminal behavior as a result of Mehanna's exhorting, has he crossed the line? A 1% chance? A 25% chance? How likely is "likely"? Is it a sliding scale, depending on how devastating we fear the "incited action" might be?
Is there such a thing as Immaterial Support?
The second major interpretive question facing the jury in the Tarek Mehanna trial is whether speech can constitute "material support"? Everyone agrees that arming a terrorist organization, providing manpower for its efforts, or giving it money all count as providing that organization with material support.
The prosecution in this case contends, however, that Mehanna provided material support to the recruiting and propaganda efforts of Al Qaeda, simply by translating documents into English and posting them on his website.
In the jury instruction on material support, requested by the defense, material support can be in the form of "... service, including ... expert advice or assistance..." According to the requested instruction,
"To constitute a crime, the material support must be provided at the direction of the terrorist group, or in coordination with the terrorist group, or as a service provided directly to the terrorist group at its request."
I would imagine that the prosecution would vigorously dispute this interpretation of the statute. I do not know how Judge O'Toole has ruled on this question.
Even should this wording be used, there remains an open question of whether Mehanna's efforts were pursued "in coordination with" Al Qaeda. While it is not clear that Mehanna had direct contact with Al Qaeda members, he does seem to have had a great deal of contact with people who were themselves connected to Al Qaeda. So, how orchestrated must Mehanna's efforts have been to be considered "in coordination with" Al Qaeda?
Consider the question of approval. Suppose the prosecution could show that approval for Mehanna's efforts were posted on official Al Qaeda websites. Once Mehanna knows that Al Qaeda is aware of his actions, does he consider them coordinated?
The Law/Fact Distinction: A Convenient Legal Fiction
I have identified above two clearly interpretive questions that the jury in the Mehanna case must address as it considers its verdicts. While the questions in this case are particularly "juicy", such interpretive issues permeate all the jurors do. While it is convenient to characterize the jury as the "arbiters of the facts" and the judge as the "arbiter of the law," the distinction really does not exist. Judges make factual determinations as "rulings of law" all the time. Similarly, jurors are constantly asked to give meaning to legal terms that are ambiguous, at best.
This is not a bad thing. It provided the avenue through which a jury can act as the "conscience of the community." The jurors interpret the legal language through the lenses of the times and circumstances in which they are living.
Such a realistic understanding of what jurors do should also inform our appreciation for what jury consultants do. Some would argue (never anyone who has worked with one of us, of course) that we try to "twist the minds" of jurors. We "pervert the facts" and "manipulate the process." This is utter nonsense.
We are not lawyers. As such, we need not give even lip service to the artificial law/fact distinction. As students of human behavior, we have always understood that jurors are engaged in a difficult, sometimes subtle, and poorly guided interpretive process. With a wide spectrum of legitimate interpretations from which to choose, a juror is constantly looking for clues, for guidance, for help in understanding how to best do her job. Sometimes, her first question is simply, "How do I begin?"
We trial consultants work for clients. We try to help our clients win their cases. So, none of us would argue that we don't have an interest in the outcome of a case. I can't speak for other members of the profession, but, I can confidently say that I have never worked on a case where I thought my client shouldn't win. This is because every case is a close call. Every case relies on jurors' interpretation of testimony and evidence and the meaning of the laws they are asked to apply. In every single case I have worked on, there was a very plausible interpretation of these factors that favored my client. And, of course, in very many of them, there was a plausible set of interpretations that favored the other side.
That is why we were in court, in the first place.
What will the Mehanna jurors do?
I know how I would probably resolve the interpretive issues in the Mehanna case, although I allow for the possibility that I might feel differently were I on the jury, seeing only what the jury sees. For reasons I have enumerated before, many having to do with Terror Management Theory, I also have expectations about what the final verdict will be in this case. That said, I don't know with any certainty how the individual jurors will handle the specific interpretive questions I identify here. There are no right answers, only opinions. And juror opinions never cease to surprise me.
It is very unfortunate that parties are not permitted to interview jurors in Massachusetts after they have rendered verdicts. I think it would be fascinating to learn how these jurors tackle their interpretive dilemmas. Which words will they key in on? Which definitions will prove compelling? Will they reach the same verdict for different reasons? Will the task simply prove too big for some of them?
I only hope that Judge O'Toole will treat their task with great respect. I hope that when they seek guidance, he does not simply resort to rereading the jury instructions to them. I hope that, maybe just for once, the law/fact distinction can be set aside in the interest of justice.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Challenging Jury Selection in Tarek Mehanna Trial
Followers of The Jury Box Blog know that I have been following closely the case of Tarek Mehanna, since he was arrested and arraigned nearly two years ago. Mehanna, a pharmacist from Sudbury, MA, is accused of engaging in terrorist activities and "providing material support" for Al Qaeda. In addition to have allegedly attempted (unsuccessfully) to receive jihadist training in Yemen and plan the bombing of an American shopping mall, Mehanna is accused of translating into English and posting to websites hundreds of pro-Al Qaeda documents. His case then presents a very difficult question. Can publishing propaganda be considered "providing material support"? Mehanna's defense team desperately wants to turn this into a First Amendment case, while the prosecution aims to prove that the defendants efforts were all aimed at actually furthering the destructive efforts of a terrorist organization.
 |
Tarek Mehanna
|
You can review my earlier blog posts about the case here. In addition, I gave a talk about Terror Management Theory at Harvard Law School in September, where I focused in on the challenges presented by the Mehanna case. Finally, as the trial got started this week, I was interviewed by WBZ-TV news (the CBS affiliate in Boston) about the challenges associated with picking a jury in this highly charged case. A brief snippet of that interview can be found in the video embedded in this page.) In previous blog posts, as well as the TV interview, I addressed the fact that the default jury selection rules in federal court are ill-suited to handling the myriad problems of intrinsic bias in this case. Having the judge conduct group voir dire in open court is a recipe for disaster. Judge O'Toole, who is presiding over the case, is not exactly known as an innovator on the bench.
 |
Judge George O'Toole
|
Jury selection did begin on Monday of this week and we have learned just a few things about how it is proceeding.
- The initial panel of prospective jurors numbered only 60. Given that this could be a two-month trial, this seems to be a really small number. It suggests that the judge is not going to be particularly accommodating with respect to challenges for cause, based either on personal beliefs and experiences, or exposure to pre-trial publicity about the case.
- The group voir dire was pretty much by the book. Everyone was asked a series of yes-or-no questions to which they had to respond affirmatively by raising their hands. Much research on this topic suggests that prospective jurors very often "lie through omission" in this setting, especially with respect to sensitive or controversial topics.
- Judge O'Toole did have the good sense to conduct the ensuing individualized voir dire in his chambers. That is, rather than having a prospective juror come up to side-bar for a whispered conversation, with a courtroom full of spectators, fellow jurors and reporters trying to eavesdrop, O'Toole elected to have these conversations in private. Only the judge, a court reporter, the attorneys and the defendant have been permitted into chambers for this part of the voir dire. This should help people feel slightly more comfortable and hopefully forthcoming, as well.
- Despite much research that shows that jurors tend to be more open, honest and forthcoming when questioned by attorneys, Judge O'Toole is insisting on conducting the voir dire himself. In addition to the general intimidation factor, this runs the risk of jurors trying to anticipate the "right" answers to his questions, or trying to please him with their responses.
- The other major problem with this judge-conducted voir dire is the insistence of judges to ask the "Can you be fair?" question. "Notwithstanding the fact that you have read 30 or 40 stories about the defendant in the Boston Herald over the past two years, Mr. Smith, do you think you can put aside any opinions you've encountered and be fair?" Research on this shows that people who confidently answer "yes" to such a question consistently exhibit more bias against defendants than people who admit that their exposure to pretrial publicity might have compromised their impartiality. Self-reflective jurors just tend to be more conscientious.
- We have learned a few things about what each side has asked to be included in the voir dire questions. Mehanna’s lawyers asked the judge to question prospective jurors about whether they have any family or close personal friends who were directly affected by Sept. 11 and if they attended any memorial service commemorating Sept. 11. This is a reasonable question, given that it is experiential, rather than opinion-based.
- The defense also asked for prospective jurors to be questioned about whether evidence that Mehanna greatly admired bin Laden would make it difficult for them to be impartial. This question is poorly worded, in that it asks for a level of self-reflection and self-evaluation unattainable by most people. Responses to such a question just aren't remotely reliable.
- Mehanna’s lawyers also want the judge to ask jurors whether they could be impartial after hearing evidence that Mehanna, an American-born Muslim, supported the destruction of the World Trade Center. This question suffers from the maladies as the previous one. The defense team is really in a quandary here because they are forced to phrase questions as yes-or-no and the judge will insist on wording about impartiality.
- Prosecutors, meanwhile, focused their proposed questions on attitudes about how some evidence against Mehanna was collected. They asked the judge to question jurors on whether they believe the use of electronic wiretaps is unfair and would make them unable to be impartial in evaluating the evidence against Mehanna. Again, the form of this question is terrible. It would be much better to just ask each prospective juror to talk a little bit about her views on the weighing of civil liberties against national security. Open-ended questions always work much better.
- The government also wants the judge to ask if jurors have any “fixed feelings or impressions” about Arabs or Muslims that would make it difficult for them to listen to the evidence with an open mind. My sense is that the only people who will answer in the affirmative here are folks trying to get out of serving.
To sum up then, the decision to hold individual voir dire in chambers should increase the willingness of prospective jurors to be candid and forthcoming. The public may never learn how these interviews have been conducted. I only hope that Judge O'Toole, outside of the media spotlight, will treat this voir dire as an opportunity to have more of a conversation with jurors, rather than peppering them with the traditional barrage of challenging questions.
 |
Attorney John W. Carney, Jr.
|
Perhaps there is hope, given how upbeat Mehanna's defense attorney, John Carney, was at the end of Tuesday's session. He told reporters, "We're very pleased with the thoroughness with which Judge O'Toole is questioning prospective jurors. We are optimistic that we will get a fair and thoughtful jury in this case."
I wonder if the prosecutor is as sanguine....
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Ferdaus Arrest complicates Mehanna trial
When did Massachusetts move from the Northeast to the Middle East?
Massachusetts residents awoke last week to the disturbing news that yet another resident of the Commonwealth had been arrested for Al Qaeda inspired terrorist activity. Rezwan Ferdaus is alleged to have concocted an elaborate plot to fly drone airplanes, loaded with explosives, into the U.S. Capitol, and then have snipers located nearby to shoot officials fleeing the explosions. Mr. Ferdaus is an American citizen with an engineering degree from Northeastern University, located right in the heart of Boston.
It will be several years before Mr. Ferdaus is tried for his alleged crimes. That does not mean, however, that the effects of his arrest won't be felt around here much sooner. Tarek Mehanna, whose case I have discussed in earlier blog posts (09/03/11 post, 11/03/09 post), was originally scheduled to go on trial for similar terrorist planning activities on Monday of this week, only a few days after Ferdaus was arrested. Mehanna's trial has now been postponed until later this month, but the shock of Ferdaus' audacious plan will undoubtedly still be fresh in the minds of Massachusetts jurors.
As I have discussed in the previous posts about the Mehanna case, Terror Management Theory (TMT) has a lot to say about how jurors react to evidence and make decisions in trials involving allegations of terrorism. The constant reminders of death and mortal vulnerability triggers fear-induced intensification of one's commitment to one's world view. Jurors will feel threatened and they will respond by vigorously defending their values and chosen way of life against that perceived threat. Logic and common sense often give way to emotional reactions and the need to feel safer at any cost.
It was going to be very, very hard for Mehanna to receive a fair trial in Massachusetts anyway. The 10th anniversary of 9/11 was very recent. Massachusetts residents have not forgotten that the planes that hit the twin towers originated here and carried many friends and loved ones. The default jury selection rules in Federal District Court do not provide many opportunities for lawyers to identify those jurors most likely to have their decision-making hijacked by emotional concerns.
Now, along comes another "home-grown terrorist." Undoubtedly, jurors will be more terrified than ever and want, more than anything else, to make it all stop -- to regain their safety and security. The emotionally-driven temptation to throw the book at Mehanna may prove too much to bear.
I gave a talk to the Harvard Law School Student Association of Law and Mind Sciences (SALMS) last month, where I discussed Terror Management Theory, and its application to the Mehanna case. (You can view my slides here.) A student asked whether I was at all optimistic that some of the defense strategies I suggested in my talk might actually help Mehanna get a fair trial. I couldn't express much optimism at the time and I am afraid that recent developments only make it more difficult for him to get a fair trial here in the new hotbed of domestic terrorism.
 |
| Rezwan Ferdaus |
Massachusetts residents awoke last week to the disturbing news that yet another resident of the Commonwealth had been arrested for Al Qaeda inspired terrorist activity. Rezwan Ferdaus is alleged to have concocted an elaborate plot to fly drone airplanes, loaded with explosives, into the U.S. Capitol, and then have snipers located nearby to shoot officials fleeing the explosions. Mr. Ferdaus is an American citizen with an engineering degree from Northeastern University, located right in the heart of Boston.
 |
| Tarek Mehanna |
As I have discussed in the previous posts about the Mehanna case, Terror Management Theory (TMT) has a lot to say about how jurors react to evidence and make decisions in trials involving allegations of terrorism. The constant reminders of death and mortal vulnerability triggers fear-induced intensification of one's commitment to one's world view. Jurors will feel threatened and they will respond by vigorously defending their values and chosen way of life against that perceived threat. Logic and common sense often give way to emotional reactions and the need to feel safer at any cost.
It was going to be very, very hard for Mehanna to receive a fair trial in Massachusetts anyway. The 10th anniversary of 9/11 was very recent. Massachusetts residents have not forgotten that the planes that hit the twin towers originated here and carried many friends and loved ones. The default jury selection rules in Federal District Court do not provide many opportunities for lawyers to identify those jurors most likely to have their decision-making hijacked by emotional concerns.
Now, along comes another "home-grown terrorist." Undoubtedly, jurors will be more terrified than ever and want, more than anything else, to make it all stop -- to regain their safety and security. The emotionally-driven temptation to throw the book at Mehanna may prove too much to bear.
I gave a talk to the Harvard Law School Student Association of Law and Mind Sciences (SALMS) last month, where I discussed Terror Management Theory, and its application to the Mehanna case. (You can view my slides here.) A student asked whether I was at all optimistic that some of the defense strategies I suggested in my talk might actually help Mehanna get a fair trial. I couldn't express much optimism at the time and I am afraid that recent developments only make it more difficult for him to get a fair trial here in the new hotbed of domestic terrorism.
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Facing the Fearful Jury: Terror Management Theory in the Courtroom
A few years ago, a collection of scholars at Harvard realized that there existed a great deal of psychological, neurological and sociological research on human cognition and behavior with profound implications for the practice of law. In order to explore these implications in a systematic way, they started the Harvard Project on Law and Mind Sciences, (PLMS) housed at Harvard Law School.
The founders launched several initiatives at once. They established The Situationalist, a blog devoted to the intersection of mind sciences and legal institutions. Rather than having the blog written by the same person all the time, The Situationalist invites contributions from dozens of scholars from all over. The result is an ecclectic and fascinating overview of exciting developments in this field.
PLMS has also run four conferences exploring psychological aspects of the law. The 2011 conference focused on causes and consequences of inequality. The 2010 conference dealt with the heavy-duty challenge of what, if anything, neuroscience can tell us about morality.
There is also a student group, The Student Association for Law and Mind Sciences (SALMS), which publishes its own blog and also sponsors a speaker series at the Law School. These talks, which are open to the public, cover a fascinating and diverse set of topics. The Fall schedule is now posted on the SALMS website.
I have the honor of delivering the first presentation of this semester. My talk, entitled "Facing the Fearful Jury: Terror Management Theory in the Courtroom," will be on Tuesday, September 13, at Noon, in 101 Pound Hall at Harvard Law School. The presentation, including time for questions, will last about one hour.
For those of you who are curious about what exactly Terror Management Theory (TMT) is, I would point you to two resources. First, there is an excellent review article, by Lieberman and Arndt, in The Jury Expert, the online journal of the American Society of Trial Consultants (ASTC). Second, you can review an earlier posting to The Jury Box Blog about the arrest of Tarek Mehanna, a pharmacist from Sudbury, MA who faces trial this fall on terrorism-related charges. In that earlier blog post, I anticipated that Terror Management Theory would have a lot to do with how this case would ultimately be resolved. As the eve of trial approaches, I will return to Mehanna's case during my upcoming talk.
It will have escaped the attention of few of you that my talk falls very near to the 10th anniversary of 9/11. This is no accident, in that the SALMS organizers have made a concerted effort to use this year's speaker series to reflect on the consequences of that fateful day for how we think, feel and react to the law. I know that we all remember where we were on that morning. As it so happens, I was sitting in Bill Eskridge's Civil Procedure class at Yale Law School, in a classroom not-so-different from the one where I will be giving my presentation 3654 days later. I know that those events affect me psychologically -- emotionally -- even today. Imagine what must go through the minds of jurors who are forced to face those fears head-on while deciding the fate of someone accused of plotting new terrorist acts. And so we have TMT in a nutshell.
I hope that those of you who are local will join me for what should be a very interesting discussion on Tuesday. For those who cannot attend, I will be sure to post here, and on my Twitter Feed, where one can watch the recorded talk online, once it is posted.
The founders launched several initiatives at once. They established The Situationalist, a blog devoted to the intersection of mind sciences and legal institutions. Rather than having the blog written by the same person all the time, The Situationalist invites contributions from dozens of scholars from all over. The result is an ecclectic and fascinating overview of exciting developments in this field.
PLMS has also run four conferences exploring psychological aspects of the law. The 2011 conference focused on causes and consequences of inequality. The 2010 conference dealt with the heavy-duty challenge of what, if anything, neuroscience can tell us about morality.
There is also a student group, The Student Association for Law and Mind Sciences (SALMS), which publishes its own blog and also sponsors a speaker series at the Law School. These talks, which are open to the public, cover a fascinating and diverse set of topics. The Fall schedule is now posted on the SALMS website.
I have the honor of delivering the first presentation of this semester. My talk, entitled "Facing the Fearful Jury: Terror Management Theory in the Courtroom," will be on Tuesday, September 13, at Noon, in 101 Pound Hall at Harvard Law School. The presentation, including time for questions, will last about one hour.
For those of you who are curious about what exactly Terror Management Theory (TMT) is, I would point you to two resources. First, there is an excellent review article, by Lieberman and Arndt, in The Jury Expert, the online journal of the American Society of Trial Consultants (ASTC). Second, you can review an earlier posting to The Jury Box Blog about the arrest of Tarek Mehanna, a pharmacist from Sudbury, MA who faces trial this fall on terrorism-related charges. In that earlier blog post, I anticipated that Terror Management Theory would have a lot to do with how this case would ultimately be resolved. As the eve of trial approaches, I will return to Mehanna's case during my upcoming talk.
It will have escaped the attention of few of you that my talk falls very near to the 10th anniversary of 9/11. This is no accident, in that the SALMS organizers have made a concerted effort to use this year's speaker series to reflect on the consequences of that fateful day for how we think, feel and react to the law. I know that we all remember where we were on that morning. As it so happens, I was sitting in Bill Eskridge's Civil Procedure class at Yale Law School, in a classroom not-so-different from the one where I will be giving my presentation 3654 days later. I know that those events affect me psychologically -- emotionally -- even today. Imagine what must go through the minds of jurors who are forced to face those fears head-on while deciding the fate of someone accused of plotting new terrorist acts. And so we have TMT in a nutshell.
I hope that those of you who are local will join me for what should be a very interesting discussion on Tuesday. For those who cannot attend, I will be sure to post here, and on my Twitter Feed, where one can watch the recorded talk online, once it is posted.
Friday, January 07, 2011
Blame Avoidance v. Blame Deflection: The Gun Show Uzi trial
Gun show Uzi trial highlights emotional impact of tragedy
The manslaughter trial of Edward Fleury, a retired Police Chief, finally got underway in Springfield, MA this week. The trial stems from a fatal accident at a gun show organized by Mr. Fleury, at which an 8-year-old boy, Christopher Bizilj, fatally shot himself with a lightweight Uzi submachine gun.
Prior to the original start date for the trial (which was delayed for over a month), I wrote a blog post in which I speculated about the kind of strategy the defense would have to employ in this case. Both Fleury and the two men who supplied the gun in question (who face similar charges in a separate trial) can mount legitimate defenses to the charges against them. While the boy’s death was certainly tragic and preventable, it is not clear that any of these men violated any laws that resulted in the accident.
In the earlier post, I suggested that it would be insufficient in such a emotionally charged case to simply demonstrate to the jury that the defendant’s conduct was not criminal. Terror management theory (TMT) is a psychological framework for understanding how people cope with the feelings of vulnerability and fear associated with tragic events beyond their own control. You can read more about how TMT applies to jury decision-making here. According to TMT, one of the strongest impulses in the aftermath of a tragedy is to assign responsibility or blame for what happened. Psychologically, we all want to avoid either (1) taking personal responsibility for a catastrophic event or (2) accepting that such horrific occurrences could really be random and uncontrollable.
Blame deflection v. blame avoidance
In light of these forces, I suggested that Fleury’s defense team would need to actually deflect blame onto someone else. This would allow the jury to find him not-guilty while still holding someone responsible. In the earlier post, I suggested that the safest option would be to find some government agency or inspector who had dropped the ball, in terms of allowing the boy to shoot the fatal weapon. People are more than happy in most circumstances to conclude that the “government” is at fault (Just look at the Tea Party success). The problems with such a strategy in this case are two-fold. First, this tragic event involved the direct participation of several identifiable individuals. In addition, the boy’s father videotaped the whole thing, adding to the intensely personal nature of the accident. The jury can actually see who was there when the bullets flew (Compare this with the case of the ceiling collapse in the Big Dig tunnel). As such, the jurors will be reluctant to assign blame to someone who wasn’t anywhere near the scene.
The second problem with such a strategy is that there is a lot of blame to go around. This poor boy shot his own head off in front of his whole family. Even if jurors were inclined to blame the state agency responsible for certifying gun shows and the person who permitted this one, they would still have plenty of anger left over for Mr. Fleury.
Given the unlikelihood of success from blaming a faceless bureaucracy for the boy’s death, Mr. Fleury’s defense team had little choice but to adopt the more dramatic – and risky – strategy of blaming the boy’s father for signing his 8-year-old son up to shoot the Uzi in the first place. The message has to be, “What kind of man gives his own little boy a submachine gun if the kid has no idea how to use it?” The entire defense strategy is that everyone at the gun show only did what Mr. Bizilj asked them to. He – the father – was in control of the situation at all times.
Fleury Defense Team reaches for the brass ring
The trial has been going on for a few days now and, unsurprisingly, Mr. Fleury’s defense attorney, Rosemary Scapicchio, has adopted precisely this strategy. She highlighted in her opening statement that every discretionary decision at the gun show regarding Christopher Bizilj was made by his father. In cross-examining prosecution witnesses, she has emphasized the normalcy of the gun show prior to Chistopher picking up the fatal gun. She is trying to emphasize that everything at the show was running smoothly until Mr. Bizilj encouraged his son to take the uzi.
This strategy is fraught with danger, however. Beyond the obvious backlash associated with “blaming the victim,” Ms. Scapicchio would be wise to worry about reactance from jurors. Reactance is an instinctual response to having one’s autonomy threatened. The jurors might not like being told whom to hold responsible.
I have worked on several cases (both criminal and civil) in which a victim’s parent, or parents, might have been considered at least partially responsible for a child’s harm. My experience with such circumstances suggests that jurors are often quite willing to blame a parent for negligently supervising a child. That said, jurors show a greater reluctance to do so when told to by one side or the other. The key is to give jurors everything they need to draw inferences implicating the parents without actually accusing them directly.
So far, Ms. Scapicchio has not been shy about blaming Mr. Bizilj directly. Perhaps this will set up a contest of sorts between Fleury and Bizilj, whereby the jury will vote not-guilty if they decide the father is more at fault. Just today, the fifteen-year-old boy who was supervising the uzi shooting booth testified that he twice asked Mr. Bizilj to consider a less powerful gun for his young son. I would only be concerned that the jurors will resent being asked to blame the father for his own son’s death. If they feel manipulated into a false choice between the defendant and the father, they might just convict out of spite against the defense team.
We’ll just have to wait and find out with everyone else.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Tragedy, Hindsight Bias and the Blame Game
A Tragic Spray of Bullets
At a gun show in Westfield, Massachusetts, organized by a former police chief, Chistopher Bizilj (age 8) lost his life. Among the guns that two men brought to the show was a small Uzi submachine gun. They handed the gun to Bizilj, who started to fire the gun, lost control, and accidentally and fatally shot himself.
Now, the event organizer and two weapons providers are on trial for involuntary manslaughter in the boy's death. Originally scheduled for trial this month, the case has been continued until December.
The three defendants will certainly attempt to defend their actions as inherently safe and reasonable. Their defense will be that this was a horrible, unforeseeable accident. Such a defense might have difficulty holding sway even among a group of philosophers and legal scholars, sitting around a conference table. The odds are even longer in an emotionally charged courtroom.
No Such Thing as an Accident?
One major obstacle facing the defense is "hindsight bias," a term that I have discussed multiple times in other Jury Box posts. In short, hindsight bias refers to the tendency of people to perceive a highly unlikely, or freakish, event as having been more likely than it was, just because it happened. For instance, if someone gets struck by lightening in your home town, you might come to believe that this is a much more common occurrence than it actually is.
Hindsight Bias tends to lead jurors down a path of irrational inferences. Because people don't like the idea of life being beyond their own abilities to control it, they tend also to overestimate the likelihood that someone is actually responsible for a freakish occurrence, especially a dangerous one. The crazier and more improbable the circumstances, the more uncomfortable it makes people feel. They feel increasingly compelled to assign blame to someone. This results in a rather perverse relationship between the randomness of an event and the need of people to hold someone responsible for it. (This is actually the nexus of hindsight bias and terror management theory.)
One of the greatest fears facing any parent is the prospect of losing a child to senseless violence. A juror will internally resist seeing this event as an accident because doing so only highlights the vulnerability of their own children. While the defense might hope for some support among jurors who are gun advocates, such people are likely to try to differentiate themselves from the defendants. "Oh, a responsible gun owner would never handle a weapon that way. I always lock my guns when children are around. I'd never hand a loaded weapon to a small boy. That's just what the left-wing loonies think we do all the time."
From Blame Avoidance to Blame Shifting
In light of the issues identified above, it will be very difficult for the defendants in this case to convince a jury that the boy's death was simply the result of a tragic accident. The desire to hold someone accountable will just be too strong. The defendants would do well to try to shift the blame elsewhere. This strategy is not without risk and might engender some resentment among jurors. But it also just might work.
The major difficulty here might be finding someone else to point the finger at. One obvious possibility is the boy's parents. What were they doing taking an 8-year old to a gun show? Did his father really let him just take the gun? Had they ever taught him about gun safety? The danger of such a strategy, however, is self-evident. Because the parents have just suffered such a terrible loss, the defendants would face major resentment for "blaming the victim."
Perhaps the event organizer can point to regulations that precluded him from keeping children out of the event. Perhaps the suppliers can point to manufacturer guidelines that identify the gun as suitable for use by youngsters. The gun suppliers have already claimed that Fleury, the event organizer, incorrectly assured them that it was legal in Massachusetts for a minor to fire an Uzi. In addition, the gun club that hosted the event has already settled its criminal charges. This provides an opportunity to assign blame to a party that won't be in the courtroom to defend itself.
Over all, I believe that the defendants in this case will have a very difficult time overcoming the effects of hindsight bias. I fully expect plea deals to be struck before the jury ever gets charged.
At a gun show in Westfield, Massachusetts, organized by a former police chief, Chistopher Bizilj (age 8) lost his life. Among the guns that two men brought to the show was a small Uzi submachine gun. They handed the gun to Bizilj, who started to fire the gun, lost control, and accidentally and fatally shot himself.
Now, the event organizer and two weapons providers are on trial for involuntary manslaughter in the boy's death. Originally scheduled for trial this month, the case has been continued until December.
No Such Thing as an Accident?
One major obstacle facing the defense is "hindsight bias," a term that I have discussed multiple times in other Jury Box posts. In short, hindsight bias refers to the tendency of people to perceive a highly unlikely, or freakish, event as having been more likely than it was, just because it happened. For instance, if someone gets struck by lightening in your home town, you might come to believe that this is a much more common occurrence than it actually is.
One of the greatest fears facing any parent is the prospect of losing a child to senseless violence. A juror will internally resist seeing this event as an accident because doing so only highlights the vulnerability of their own children. While the defense might hope for some support among jurors who are gun advocates, such people are likely to try to differentiate themselves from the defendants. "Oh, a responsible gun owner would never handle a weapon that way. I always lock my guns when children are around. I'd never hand a loaded weapon to a small boy. That's just what the left-wing loonies think we do all the time."
From Blame Avoidance to Blame Shifting
In light of the issues identified above, it will be very difficult for the defendants in this case to convince a jury that the boy's death was simply the result of a tragic accident. The desire to hold someone accountable will just be too strong. The defendants would do well to try to shift the blame elsewhere. This strategy is not without risk and might engender some resentment among jurors. But it also just might work.
Perhaps the event organizer can point to regulations that precluded him from keeping children out of the event. Perhaps the suppliers can point to manufacturer guidelines that identify the gun as suitable for use by youngsters. The gun suppliers have already claimed that Fleury, the event organizer, incorrectly assured them that it was legal in Massachusetts for a minor to fire an Uzi. In addition, the gun club that hosted the event has already settled its criminal charges. This provides an opportunity to assign blame to a party that won't be in the courtroom to defend itself.
Over all, I believe that the defendants in this case will have a very difficult time overcoming the effects of hindsight bias. I fully expect plea deals to be struck before the jury ever gets charged.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Boston Terrorism case will prove a test of Terror Management Theory
On October 21, Acting U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, Michael K. Loucks, announced that Tarek Mehanna, a 27 year old Sudbury man, had been arrested on suspicion of terrorism. Last year, Mehannna had been charged with lying to authorities in conjunction with the investigation of another terrorism suspect, Daniel J. Maldonado.
Mehanna and his coconspirators apparently never got particularly close to actually carrying out any terrorist acts. They are alleged to have travelled to several foreign countries in search of training by extremist Islamist groups, but were never accepted. They are also alleged to have failed in their attempts to secure weapons for an attack on U.S. soil. As such, Mehanna's alleged terrorist activities were largely aspirational. U.S. criminal law is very clear in not punishing people for "thinking bad thoughts," regardless of how reprehensible those thoughts might be. Prosecutors are faced with proving that Mehanna actually took specific steps to operationalize concrete terrorist acts. This scenario is almost certain to result in Mehanna's attorneys refusing to accept a plea, insisting instead to take the case to trial.
What then might we expect from a Mehanna terror trial?
One thing is certain: Terror management theory (TMT) will play a major role in how jurors resolve the case.
What is Terror Management Theory?
Pioneered by Ernest Becker in the 1970s, Terror Management Theory (TMT) concerns how people manage fears of their own mortality. Here is TMT theory in a nutshell: Every person has a particular world view, comprised of their beliefs, values, experiences, and choices. Each individual requires periodic confirmation and support for his world view. Such support allows him to feel good about himself and live comfortably with the choices he has made. When a person is confronted by his own mortality, it emphasizes his fragile and limited existence on earth, creating a great sense of unease. Facing such emotional stress, a normal person will require more reassurance than usual and will typically take refuge in the company of those who share his world view. He will defend that world view more rigorously than usual and will view more negatively attitudes and behaviors that conflict with that world view.
An excellent review of Terror Management Theory, and its application to jury trials, by Joel Lieberman and Jamie Arndt, appeared earlier this year in The Jury Expert, the online publication of the American Society of Trial Consultants. Be sure to check out the two commentaries by trial consultants that follow the article. I highly recommend that any litigator read this article, as the theory is relevant across a wide variety of cases. Given what a good job the authors did in explaining TMT, I won't go into much more detail here.
I would only ask my readers to consider Americans' responses to the events of September 11, 2001. People shouted their patriotism from the rooftops. Men and women joined the military in record numbers. Politicians sported American Flag pins and the President's approval ratings skyrocketed. People were terrified and they took every step possible to shore up the element of their world view that had been most threatened: their Americanism. Congress even went so far as to rename French fries Freedom fries in response to perceived inadequate support from the French government. It was the ultimate case of rallying 'round the flag.
The Jury Expert article includes references to dozens of studies confirming the effects of TMT and does a nice job of reviewing a few examples. It is quite remarkable how much a person's behavior can be affected by simply thinking about something morbid for a few minutes.
Terrorism and TMT
I cannot imagine a crime that calls up concerns for one's own mortality more than terrorism. The more that a juror finds herself obsessing about death, in response to the details of a terrorism trial, the more punitive she will likely be to a defendant whose beliefs and actions directly threaten her own world view.
Typically, a change of venue is only granted when a judge is convinced that pervasive pretrial publicity has made it virtually impossible to impanel an impartial jury. While the Mehanna case has certainly received a great deal of publicity already, it will be an uphill struggle for Mehanna's lawyers to secure a change of venue. The U.S. Attorney's office will argue that the publicity has been national in scope, so that the defendant will face similar exposure in other venues. But Mehanna faces a more subtle challenge associated with being tried close to home. When prospective jurors learn of the charges against Mehanna, they will realize that it was their own lives that were in danger. From what I understand, the defendant is accused of planning to bomb local shopping malls. So, every prospective juror will realize that she might have been one of his victims. This will ramp up obsession with mortality and morbid concerns, thereby ratcheting up juror disapproval of Mehanna's world view. As the jurors dig in, in defense of all they hold dear, Mehanna will be seen as an enormous threat. While a jury in some other part of the country would certainly also view these alleged terrorist plans as reprehensible, such jurors would not necessarily experience a similar sense of mortality and dread.
There is one byproduct of TMT that might work in Mehanna's favor. One item that is seen as emblematic of "American Justice" is a firm commitment to fair procedures. Americans identify strongly with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. They believe that one of the things that makes our country great is that we do everything "by the book" and in a "transparent" way -- not like those "crazies" in the Middle East. As such, jurors in this case are likely to be extremely careful to follow all court rules and judicial instructions. Juries in prior terrorism cases have ruled in favor of defendants when they have perceived that those defendants didn't really get a fair trial or when the evidence has been sketchy.
So, while jurors in this case will feel strong psychological pulls to be punitive towards Mr. Mehanna, they will also feel a strong need to dot all their i's and cross all their t's and generally do everything by the book. Because that is the American Way. The only question is whether these conscious efforts cans overcome natural subconscious tendencies to punish a man who has made jurors feel exposed and vulnerable.
What is a defense attorney to do?
This will obviously be a tough case to defend. That said, there a few things Mr. Mehanna's attorneys can do to mitigate the negative consequences of TMT and use its positive features to their advantage.
1. Make sure to ask prospective jurors about their emotional reactions to hearing about the arrest for the first time. Anyone who replies, "I thought, 'Oh my God! That could have been me in one of those malls!'" is of concern.
2. Spend a lot of time in opening and closing emphasizing the dimensions of procedural fairness built into the American criminal justice system. Burden of proof. Evidentiary rules. Reasonable doubt standard.
3. Remind jurors of their obligations as Americans to follow those rules.
4. Characterize the defendant as an "American who was led astray." It is key to convince jurors that the defendant is not the threat. The threat is those who would seek to use someone like the defendant as a tool in their diabolical plans.
5. During the jury selection process, make good use of some authoritarianism index, in an effort to identify those prospective jurors most likely to give vent to their punitive tendencies.
Moving Forward
Mr. Mehanna's most recent court hearing, on his detention status, was postponed until November 12, so that his attorneys could have more time to prepare. I have a feeling that this case will take a long time to move through the trial process. As it does so, I will be sure to provide updates on this blog, along with commentary on any features of the trial that seem noteworthy.
Mehanna and his coconspirators apparently never got particularly close to actually carrying out any terrorist acts. They are alleged to have travelled to several foreign countries in search of training by extremist Islamist groups, but were never accepted. They are also alleged to have failed in their attempts to secure weapons for an attack on U.S. soil. As such, Mehanna's alleged terrorist activities were largely aspirational. U.S. criminal law is very clear in not punishing people for "thinking bad thoughts," regardless of how reprehensible those thoughts might be. Prosecutors are faced with proving that Mehanna actually took specific steps to operationalize concrete terrorist acts. This scenario is almost certain to result in Mehanna's attorneys refusing to accept a plea, insisting instead to take the case to trial.
What then might we expect from a Mehanna terror trial?
One thing is certain: Terror management theory (TMT) will play a major role in how jurors resolve the case.
What is Terror Management Theory?
Pioneered by Ernest Becker in the 1970s, Terror Management Theory (TMT) concerns how people manage fears of their own mortality. Here is TMT theory in a nutshell: Every person has a particular world view, comprised of their beliefs, values, experiences, and choices. Each individual requires periodic confirmation and support for his world view. Such support allows him to feel good about himself and live comfortably with the choices he has made. When a person is confronted by his own mortality, it emphasizes his fragile and limited existence on earth, creating a great sense of unease. Facing such emotional stress, a normal person will require more reassurance than usual and will typically take refuge in the company of those who share his world view. He will defend that world view more rigorously than usual and will view more negatively attitudes and behaviors that conflict with that world view.
An excellent review of Terror Management Theory, and its application to jury trials, by Joel Lieberman and Jamie Arndt, appeared earlier this year in The Jury Expert, the online publication of the American Society of Trial Consultants. Be sure to check out the two commentaries by trial consultants that follow the article. I highly recommend that any litigator read this article, as the theory is relevant across a wide variety of cases. Given what a good job the authors did in explaining TMT, I won't go into much more detail here.
I would only ask my readers to consider Americans' responses to the events of September 11, 2001. People shouted their patriotism from the rooftops. Men and women joined the military in record numbers. Politicians sported American Flag pins and the President's approval ratings skyrocketed. People were terrified and they took every step possible to shore up the element of their world view that had been most threatened: their Americanism. Congress even went so far as to rename French fries Freedom fries in response to perceived inadequate support from the French government. It was the ultimate case of rallying 'round the flag.
The Jury Expert article includes references to dozens of studies confirming the effects of TMT and does a nice job of reviewing a few examples. It is quite remarkable how much a person's behavior can be affected by simply thinking about something morbid for a few minutes.
Terrorism and TMT
I cannot imagine a crime that calls up concerns for one's own mortality more than terrorism. The more that a juror finds herself obsessing about death, in response to the details of a terrorism trial, the more punitive she will likely be to a defendant whose beliefs and actions directly threaten her own world view.
Typically, a change of venue is only granted when a judge is convinced that pervasive pretrial publicity has made it virtually impossible to impanel an impartial jury. While the Mehanna case has certainly received a great deal of publicity already, it will be an uphill struggle for Mehanna's lawyers to secure a change of venue. The U.S. Attorney's office will argue that the publicity has been national in scope, so that the defendant will face similar exposure in other venues. But Mehanna faces a more subtle challenge associated with being tried close to home. When prospective jurors learn of the charges against Mehanna, they will realize that it was their own lives that were in danger. From what I understand, the defendant is accused of planning to bomb local shopping malls. So, every prospective juror will realize that she might have been one of his victims. This will ramp up obsession with mortality and morbid concerns, thereby ratcheting up juror disapproval of Mehanna's world view. As the jurors dig in, in defense of all they hold dear, Mehanna will be seen as an enormous threat. While a jury in some other part of the country would certainly also view these alleged terrorist plans as reprehensible, such jurors would not necessarily experience a similar sense of mortality and dread.
There is one byproduct of TMT that might work in Mehanna's favor. One item that is seen as emblematic of "American Justice" is a firm commitment to fair procedures. Americans identify strongly with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. They believe that one of the things that makes our country great is that we do everything "by the book" and in a "transparent" way -- not like those "crazies" in the Middle East. As such, jurors in this case are likely to be extremely careful to follow all court rules and judicial instructions. Juries in prior terrorism cases have ruled in favor of defendants when they have perceived that those defendants didn't really get a fair trial or when the evidence has been sketchy.
So, while jurors in this case will feel strong psychological pulls to be punitive towards Mr. Mehanna, they will also feel a strong need to dot all their i's and cross all their t's and generally do everything by the book. Because that is the American Way. The only question is whether these conscious efforts cans overcome natural subconscious tendencies to punish a man who has made jurors feel exposed and vulnerable.
What is a defense attorney to do?
This will obviously be a tough case to defend. That said, there a few things Mr. Mehanna's attorneys can do to mitigate the negative consequences of TMT and use its positive features to their advantage.
1. Make sure to ask prospective jurors about their emotional reactions to hearing about the arrest for the first time. Anyone who replies, "I thought, 'Oh my God! That could have been me in one of those malls!'" is of concern.
2. Spend a lot of time in opening and closing emphasizing the dimensions of procedural fairness built into the American criminal justice system. Burden of proof. Evidentiary rules. Reasonable doubt standard.
3. Remind jurors of their obligations as Americans to follow those rules.
4. Characterize the defendant as an "American who was led astray." It is key to convince jurors that the defendant is not the threat. The threat is those who would seek to use someone like the defendant as a tool in their diabolical plans.
5. During the jury selection process, make good use of some authoritarianism index, in an effort to identify those prospective jurors most likely to give vent to their punitive tendencies.
Moving Forward
Mr. Mehanna's most recent court hearing, on his detention status, was postponed until November 12, so that his attorneys could have more time to prepare. I have a feeling that this case will take a long time to move through the trial process. As it does so, I will be sure to provide updates on this blog, along with commentary on any features of the trial that seem noteworthy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)