By Bill Zeeble, KERA reporter
http://stream.publicbroadcasting.net/production/mp3/kera/local-kera-630997.mp3
Dallas, TX – Bill Zeeble, KERA reporter: From the White House to the Muslim mosque, from Bush backers to Bush whackers, many eyes are on this case. It's the biggest terror funding trial in U.S. history. Southern Methodist University Assistant Law Professor Jeffrey Kahn says it represents what then-Attorney General John Ashcroft announced back in 2001, when he shut down the Holy Land Foundation.
Jeffrey Kahn, Assistant Law Professor, SMU: That the number one purpose of the Department of Justice was to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States. This suit is an example of how using prosecutors' tools, that new mission to fight terrorism and prevent the next terrorist attack is being taken seriously by the Justice Department.
Zeeble: Some controversial aspects of this case broke new ground. Evidence included documents gathered by a foreign government, and there were un-named expert witnesses, including an Israeli intelligence agent.
Matthew Orwig, Former U.S. Prosecutor, Eastern District, Texas: Both sides are looking to precedent here.
Zeeble: Matthew Orwig, an attorney with the Sonnenschein law firm, used to be the U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Texas. Defense attorneys in this case objected to some of the evidence, but the judge allowed most of it.
Orwig: If there's a win, that'll be a vindication of those particular approaches. Every in-court argument is a basis for an appeal. I would be surprised if there were not an appeal in this case if it's a guilty verdict. Every single point objected to, raised at trial, is a likely point for appeal.
Zeeble: An acquittal, he says, would be a major setback for the government working to stop terrorists. But Holy Land Foundation supporters want say it would be a victory for justice. Over the 2 month trial, many mostly, but not exclusively Muslims, gathered in peaceful protest outside the Court House. Mustafa Carroll's Executive Director of the local Council on American Islamic Relations. Many days he sat in the court room watching the trial. To him, the government's case seemed weak.
Mustafa Carroll, Executive Director, CAIR: You know my opinion is a little biased at least, but I've been looking for the smoking gun, because I want to be critical. I don't want to say Oh they're Muslims and didn't do anything. But I want to find out the truth of the case.
Zeeble: Carroll's convinced the Holy Land charity was just that. A non-profit serving the poor in Gaza and the West Bank. Not an organization funneling money under the table to Hamas. If the verdict is guilty, Carroll worries charitable giving to the region will dry up even more than it has already.
Carroll: I don't think cutting off money to them is going to reduce terrorism or stop it. I think it only serves to increase it given the circumstances they have over there.
Zeeble: Carroll says Muslims he talks to feel like they're ALL on trial. But that's a mistake, says Law Professor Kahn:
Kahn: This is a criminal case. We are governed by laws. The only reason this criminal case could be brought is because the government alleged those laws were violated. Those laws require elements be proven to a high standard and to the satisfaction of 12 citizens chosen to be deliberative, thoughtful, objective and open minded.
Zeeble: Their decision could carry quite an impact on future terrorists prosecutions. The jury continues deciding the fate of those trial in the Holy Land Foundation case. Bill Zeeble KERA news.
Bzeeble@Kera.Org