[[I will recap later tonight. Short version: Stewart evaded the key facts. Law students did a terrific job with their questions. Hofstra must be proud of them, and I'm glad she spoke to them. There was no spoon-feeding, cheerleading, or indoctrination. There were lots of good, tough questions -- most of which were from law students.]]
Beginning in five minutes. [My comments will be in brackets. Comments by Lynne Stewart (LS) will not have brackets I will be paraphrasing and using her actual words when possible.]
[Professor Roy Simon introducing LS by reading what the sentencing judge wrote about her background. Per the judge, she repped poor, unpopular, disadvanaged; performed a public service to clients and the nation in doing so. However, she aided terrorists. She has been disbarred. Conference organizers care about education of students. LS speaking should be unique opportunity to learn.]
LS thanks Hofstra for standing up for free speech. Some universities don't do that. Ward Chuchill has been deserted by his university.
LS paused when she read that she was invited as a cautionary lesson. That gave me pause. But the govt has already sent the bigger cautionary lesson. When a brave lawyer like Ron Kuby won't take certain criminal defense cases, you have to wonder. Are we preventing criminal lawyers from operating?
Talking privately to clients is primal to the attorney client relationship. But now we have an exception to that relationship. We cannot simply accept the govt's definition of what a criminal lawyer is.
When I was sentenced, 1,000 letters came in, from bigwigs and from prisoners alike. Judge Koetel read each letter. That's what led to the statement the judge made, that Professor Roy Simon quoted.
I can also say we've filed 350 page brief on appeal. Govt filed 500 page brief. Many issues are raised. Govt basically reworked their summation but didn't answer the main problem: the huge weight of evidence that applied only to the co-defendants and not as to LS. It was prejudicial. It included huge images of Osama Bin Laden.
"Lawyering on the edge" You don't always ask yourself that about what you do. You more wrestle about what you didn't do. [Note: Professor Simon will return to this comment in his concluding remarks.] I urge the law students and lawyers as well to remember your personal statement on your law school app. You didn't say you went to law school just to make money. Remember also criminal defense is the only part of profession that deals with your clients being locked up in cages.
I didn't like all my clients. But you still do your best for them.
Sometimes you want to convince your client to take a deal. But when the courts get too anxious for pleas, some judges want to push cases too fast. But don't let them prevent you from providing effective assistance. You might have to say "I haven't had a chance to provide effective assistance." If you say that, the judge will be mad at you. But we need to do more of that.
The lawyers in Gitmo are very constrained in their representation right now. Lawyers can't discuss personal issues with the client now, by reg. When that is happening, it's time to say "no more."
Josh Dretel represented David Hicks at Gitmo, and refused to proceed, because his representation had been so restricted. Dretel did stand up.
In the final analysis my case deals with client-centered lawyering. [?!] We are vulnerable as to what we can do now. My client, Sheikh Omar, who was passed to me by Ron Kuby [Kuby yells: sorry! Laughter]
We have an Islamo-fascist view, perpetuated by the press, but to sit down with him, . . . . Rahman has been diminished. SAMs are for singled-out convicts. He was singled out. The SAMs were not court orders. They were regs. We three lawyers [Clark, Jabara, Stewart] were given "leeway" to do some lawyering.
[She suggests that Clark wasn't prosecuted because of his class advantages.]
I should have been more aware that the government will get you. Yes, I was client centered, and I'd do it again but do it differently. This was no secret clandestine thing. It [what she did for Rahman] was done openly. [??] The tapes showed we weren't surreptitiously. Guards were listening in to the conversation. That happens often. So you do insulate the client from the prisoners.
Most lawyers don't see constitutional issues. I say that about ethical considerations. Be alert for them. Make your decisions. Stand by your decisions. The line is there. The govt can move that line. They allowed me to go back in and waited for 2+ years to arrest me.
Stand up. We need people to stand up. It's a time to stand up. It may not be the underground railroad but we are under attack. Please stand up.
[Question from Monroe Freedman: I referred to you as a cautionary warning. You were apparently interviewing your client along with the interpreter. The interpreter might have involved instructions to be given to a terrorist group that might kill. You put on a show to make it seem you were asking questions. In fact, you were taped. You were taped as saying "I should get award for this performance." One of my questions is that video taping a client conversation intrudes on Bill of Rights protections. The problem is that in the future, the govt will cite your behavior in defense of the intrusions. You have done disservice to criminal defense to 5th Am and 6th Am -- illustrated by Kuby's prior statment that he won't take certain cases anymore.]
There was little time, so we had the interpreter talk directly to the client. There was nothing untoward that was said between Yousry and Rahman. [??] I knew what would be said in advance, but didn't want guards to think it was improper [so I pretended to be involved in the conversation]. My remarks were unfortunate wisecracks. It appears to be one thing [ie, what govt claimed]. My defense was full of "might have been's". No violence happened. I said to judge I had done disservice to the profession by allowing the govt to come in -- but I tell you that the reality it didn't happen [as Monroe described it].
Recent Comments