Government rests in Padilla

Lots of coverage of the Government resting today in the Jose Padilla trial ON FRIDAY THE 13th!

USA Today has this about the final witness from today:

The final prosecution witness Friday was FBI linguist Joyce Kandalaft, who testified that Hassoun's name and telephone number were on a card containing various names and numbers that Padilla was carrying when he was arrested.
She also testified about notations in Arabic made on checks written by Hassoun to Muslim charities and other entities that included the word "tourism." The government contends the word was code for violent jihad. The notations also frequently mentioned support for "brothers."
"Have you ever known the word brother to mean mujahedeen brother?" asked Assistant U.S. Attorney Russell Killinger.
"Yes, I have," Kandalaft replied.
Kandalaft also testified that Hassoun had included a verse from the Quran on one check that translates to: "And those who do wrong should soon come to know what punishment awaits them."

Strong ending for the Government. It's a nice circle -- tie the defendants together and get back to the coded language.

Then, according to the Herald's Jay Weaver:

"The United States would rest its case in chief at this time,'' prosecutor Russell Killinger said.... U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke gave a stern warning to the 12 Miami-Dade jurors not to talk about the case with anyone, nor to read or watch anything about it. ''You will have to be extra super-duper cautious,'' Cooke advised the jurors, instructing them to return on Thursday, when the defense will begin its case.

Why do lawyers always talk in "woulds"? I would rest; I would argue; I would call so and so witness. It's weird, no? I do it too, I guess, and I don't know why. I like how Judge Cooke says to be "extra super-duper cautious." I always wonder whether jurors really listen to these instructions or whether they hop on the internet...

Here's the AP article by Curt Anderson, which talks about this blog's coverage. Here's the intro to the article:

For a star defendant whose name is known around the world, Jose Padilla has become almost a bit player in his terrorism support trial and some observers say the federal government may not have proved its case against him.
Prosecutors rested their case Friday after nine weeks, 22 witnesses and dozens of FBI wiretap intercepts played at trial, most of them in Arabic with written translations for jurors. Defense lawyers for Padilla and his two co-defendants begin presenting their case next week.

Despite the strong finish, I'm one of those observers:

"Although everyone has been referring to this case as the Padilla trial, the government's case against Padilla has been pretty thin," said David O. Markus, a Miami defense attorney who has frequently written about the case on his legal blog.

I say this because most of the Government's case, including the vast majority of the phone calls played for the jury, involved the other two defendants. As I said before, I think the case against Padilla really comes down to the terror camp form and whether the jury believes that Padilla filled it out and whether they believe he did so with the intent to murder. If yes on both, convicted. If no on either, NG.

The former U.S. Attorney, Guy Lewis, is another observer:

Former Miami U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis said prosecutors often are forced to present a "watered-down" case when much evidence is classified to protect national security. It's also a tougher case when there's no "smoking gun" or witness who can swear the defendants committed illegal acts.
"It's a loose-knit conspiracy with very few overt acts," Lewis said. "You didn't catch them committing a terrorist act. Talk only, and talk is cheap."

And, of course, there's the jurors dressing up:

Jurors have sometimes shown up for duty in coordinated clothing, most notably in rows of red, white and blue before the July 4 holiday. That has prompted much speculation among lawyers and legal bloggers about whether they are unified or sending a pro-government message.
"If everyone is thinking the same way at such an early stage, defense lawyers get nervous," Markus said. "Or the prosecution could be nervous because this is obviously a happy jury. Happy juries in a terrorism trial might not be good."
Or, he added, they might simply be bored.