Fla. Professor Is Acquitted in Case Seen as Patriot Act Test

By Spencer S. Hsu and Dan EggenWashington Post Staff WritersWednesday, December 7, 2005; Page A01

A federal jury acquitted former Florida professor Sami al-Arian yesterday of conspiring to aid a Palestinian group in killing Israelis through suicide bombings, dealing the U.S. government a setback in its efforts to use secretly gathered intelligence in criminal cases against terrorism suspects.

The trial was a crucial test of government power under the USA Patriot Act, which lowered barriers that had prevented intelligence agencies from sharing secretly monitored communications with prosecutors. The case was the first criminal terrorism prosecution to rely mainly on vast amounts of materials gathered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), whose standards for searches and surveillance are less restrictive than those set by criminal courts.

The Tampa jury deliberated 13 days before rejecting arguments laid out over five months by prosecutors that the former University of South Florida computer engineer and three co-defendants conspired with leaders of Palestinian Islamic Jihad -- which the United States has designated a terrorist group -- providing it money, strategy and advice. The accusations were based on 20,000 hours of phone conversations and hundreds of faxes secretly monitored beginning in 1993.

Al-Arian, 47, was found not guilty on eight of 17 counts, including conspiracy to maim or murder. Jurors deadlocked on the rest of the charges, including ones that he aided terrorists.
Al-Arian wept and was hugged by attorney Linda Moreno after the verdict, according to news accounts, before returning to jail, where he will wait as prosecutors decide whether to retry him on the counts that resulted in deadlock.

Two co-defendants, former Florida graduate student Sameeh Taha Hammoudeh and Chicago dry cleaner Ghassan Zayed Ballut, were acquitted of all charges. The jury acquitted a third man, Hatim Naji Fariz, manager of an Illinois-based Muslim charity, of 25 counts, and failed to reach a verdict on eight others.

Juliette Kayyem, a terrorism legal analyst at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, said the outcome shows that U.S. juries can seriously consider both government accusations of terrorism and any evidence.>>>cont

Link Here