Law is looser prosecuting Lackawanna, Oregon men

Transfered from old site <!--break--> Law is looser prosecuting Lackawanna, Oregon men &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Hearsay is admissible; conspiracy charge doesn't require proof of crime &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>The Associated Press &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>(October 14, 2002) — PORTLAND, Ore. — Two key exceptions to general criminal law may allow prosecutors to use even weak evidence to build a case against a dozen men suspected of terrorism charged in Oregon and western New York, legal scholars say. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Unlike most crimes, proof of conspiracy does not require an actual crime and hearsay is allowed. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>“In the legal world, conspiracy is called the ‘darling’ of prosecutors,” said Robert Precht, a University of Michigan law professor. “It’s the closest American law comes to a `thought crime’ because the paradox of conspiracy law is there need not be any crime at all.” &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Instead, all that is needed is evidence that two or more people agreed to commit a crime and took at least one step called an “overt act” -- however trivial and even perfectly legal -- toward planning that crime or carrying it out. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>“There have to be overt acts in pursuance of the conspiracy but those overt acts can be perfectly innocuous things, like getting on a plane at JFK, so you don’t need a lot,” said Abraham Sofaer, a Stanford law professor. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Also, the nearly ironclad legal principle that bars hearsay -- testimony by one person who was merely told what another person said -- does not apply to co-conspirators, said Phil Heymann, a Harvard law professor. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>The six people indicted earlier this month in Oregon face charges of conspiracy to levy war against the United States, conspiracy to provide support to al-Qaeda, and conspiracy to contribute services to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>In Lackawanna, Erie County, the five suspects arrested last month and a sixth arrested in Bahrain are awaiting indictment under the same conspiracy law, said the FBI. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Attorney General John Ashcroft called the Oregon arrests “a defining day in America’s war against terrorism.” &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>But Heymann argued that facts disclosed so far show a group of disenfranchised young people. “They look like very small potatoes, like full-time losers,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that losers can’t do damage, but to claim this is a defining moment?” &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>The Lackawanna case may have more serious implications because all six are accused of training at a terrorist camp in Afghanistan, said Todd Gaziano, director of the Heritage Foundation center for legal and judicial studies in Washington. &nbsp;<BR> &nbsp;<BR>Even though all the suspects may have traveled legally and committed no actual crimes or violence along the way, the group mentality is considered the greatest threat under conspiracy law

<p>Transfered from old site</p> <!--break--><p>Law is looser prosecuting Lackawanna, Oregon men<br />  <br /><br />  <br /><br />  <br />Hearsay is admissible; conspiracy charge doesn't require proof of crime<br />  <br /><br />  <br /><br />  <br />The Associated Press<br />  <br /><br />  <br /><br />  <br />(October 14, 2002) — PORTLAND, Ore. — Two key exceptions to general criminal law may allow prosecutors to use even weak evidence to build a case against a dozen men suspected of terrorism charged in Oregon and western New York, legal scholars say.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />Unlike most crimes, proof of conspiracy does not require an actual crime and hearsay is allowed.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />“In the legal world, conspiracy is called the ‘darling’ of prosecutors,” said Robert Precht, a University of Michigan law professor. “It’s the closest American law comes to a `thought crime’ because the paradox of conspiracy law is there need not be any crime at all.”<br />  <br /><br />  <br />Instead, all that is needed is evidence that two or more people agreed to commit a crime and took at least one step called an “overt act” -- however trivial and even perfectly legal -- toward planning that crime or carrying it out.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />“There have to be overt acts in pursuance of the conspiracy but those overt acts can be perfectly innocuous things, like getting on a plane at JFK, so you don’t need a lot,” said Abraham Sofaer, a Stanford law professor.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />Also, the nearly ironclad legal principle that bars hearsay -- testimony by one person who was merely told what another person said -- does not apply to co-conspirators, said Phil Heymann, a Harvard law professor.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />The six people indicted earlier this month in Oregon face charges of conspiracy to levy war against the United States, conspiracy to provide support to al-Qaeda, and conspiracy to contribute services to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />In Lackawanna, Erie County, the five suspects arrested last month and a sixth arrested in Bahrain are awaiting indictment under the same conspiracy law, said the FBI.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />Attorney General John Ashcroft called the Oregon arrests “a defining day in America’s war against terrorism.”<br />  <br /><br />  <br />But Heymann argued that facts disclosed so far show a group of disenfranchised young people. “They look like very small potatoes, like full-time losers,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that losers can’t do damage, but to claim this is a defining moment?”<br />  <br /><br />  <br /><br />  <br />The Lackawanna case may have more serious implications because all six are accused of training at a terrorist camp in Afghanistan, said Todd Gaziano, director of the Heritage Foundation center for legal and judicial studies in Washington.<br />  <br /><br />  <br />Even though all the suspects may have traveled legally and committed no actual crimes or violence along the way, the group mentality is considered the greatest threat under conspiracy law</p>