Stewart more confident as jury readies to deliberate
By Mary Reinholz
After a few tears a few months ago, attorney Lynne Stewart was laughing and appeared confident this week as the jury gets ready to decide whether or not she helped terrorists.
After federal prosecutors played a videotape of Osama bin Laden and attempted to link one of her Arabic co-defendants with the 9/ll mastermind last fall, radical Downtown lawyer Lynne Stewart admitted to a reporter that she was worried about the outcome of her trial on charges of materially aiding international Islamic terrorism.
A few days later, during her own testimony on the witness stand, Stewart, 65, briefly welled up with tears when she spoke about the impact of the governments prosecution on her law practice and on her personal life. But these days, the former school librarian raised in Queens appears to have entered a whole new realm of cool now that the trial is winding down before Federal Judge John J. Koeltl in Room 110 at the U.S. District Courthouse in Foley Square. Anonymous jurors could begin deliberations next week once Stewarts lead attorney Michael E. Tigar completes his summation, the government offers its rebuttal and Koeltl delivers instructions.
Stewart, who faces 45 years in prison, showed no emotion when assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Dember in his summation contended that she was part of an international conspiracy to smuggle messages of murder and mayhem to Muslim militants abroad from her convicted terrorist client, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, serving a life sentence in isolation at a U.S. prison hospital for inciting the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and conspiring in a failed plot to blow up New York City landmarks.
She even seemed amused on Jan. 3 when Dember claimed she had secretly hoped to help violent Islamic fundamentalists overthrow the Egyptian government by issuing a May 2000 press statement on behalf of the sheikh to a Reuters reporter in Cairo. In it, the sheikh called on fellow members of the fundamentalist Islamic Group to consider withdrawing support for its 1997 cease fire with the Egyptian government.
Dember said Stewarts press statement made during a long distance telephone call and constituting the governments central allegation against her was a call to violence and killing by the I.G., which has been designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Dept. He also contended Stewart lied and defrauded the U.S. government when she broke a signed prison gag rule here in issuing the statement for the blind and diabetic sheikh, a Muslim cleric.
Her co-defendants, Arabic interpreter Mohamed Yousry and Ahmed Abdel Sattar, a former U.S. postal worker and paralegal for the sheikh, also seemed to find some of Dembers accusations comical. But the prosecutors fiery rhetoric drew several unsuccessful motions for a mistrial from Tigar, who later ripped into the government in his summation, claiming prosecutors had hyped their case against Stewart. He variously described their allegations as cynical, arrogant, reckless and cruel, and argued Stewart was treated like some kind of disposable accessory.
Tigar seemed intent on separating Stewart from her co-defendants, especially Sattar, whose more than 85,000 intercepted telephone conversations with various Islamic militants over a seven-year period comprise most of the prosecutions evidence. Sattar, who faces the most serious charges in the case and could spend life in prison if convicted, had conversations with an Egyptian I.G. member named Rifai Taha, who disagreed with the ceasefire and fled to Afghanistan where he became an associate of bin Laden, prosecutors say. Although Koeltl had warned the jury that bin Laden was not involved in the case, prosecutors were able to play a 2000 tape in which bin Laden threatened to attack the U.S. as means of winning the Shieks release from prison.
Like Kenneth A. Paul, Sattars lawyer, Tigar claimed the government was playing on post-9/ll anger, grief and fear. He contended prosecutors had indiscriminately used words like terror and terrorism because, he said, terrorism is not an element in any of the charges in this case. He dismissed the notion that Stewart participated in an Islamic conspiracy, noting that of all the governments intercepted wire taps of telephone conversations presented as evidence, Not a one supports the idea that she was aware of any conspiracy if one exists, and stressing repeatedly that Stewart does not speak or understand Arabic.
Stewart, during breaks in the 6-month long trial, seemed relaxed, even peaceful, laughing and chatting with supporters and family members who packed the courtroom for Tigars summation. Two days before he adddressed the jury, Stewart told Downtown Express she was confident that Tigar would successfully answer all charges against her.
In his opening remarks, Tigar asked the jury to consider reasonable doubt in assessing the prosecutions case against Stewart. He said she should not be convicted for breaking U.S. prison regulations limiting Abdel Rahmans contacts with the outside world because she believed she interpreteted the regulations in good faith. Her goal, he said, was to help a sick old man buried in an American prison to get back to Egypt.
Tigar noted that former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, one of the sheikhs lawyers who has testified at Stewarts trial, had chosen her to represent Abdel Rahman at his trial because he felt it was an important goal to have someone dispel the idea of Muslims being against women. He felt the world should know the sheikh had aggressive representation.