Moussaoui Jury Faces Dozens of Questions

04/28/2006

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) - Only one question matters in the end for Zacarias Moussaoui: the life-or-death one.

But to get to the answer, the jury now determining the fate of the al-Qaida operative must consider dozens of questions. Each question is a piece of the puzzle about who this man is, what he did and whether he deserves execution or the only other choice, life in prison, for his part in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Far from answering a simple yes or no, the jury has been instructed to deal with matters detailed in a 42-page verdict form:

Did Moussaoui’s actions cause tremendous disruption to the New York City economy as evidenced by the loss of 50 U.S. Customs vehicles, interruption of subway lines 1 and 9, delays in a UNICEF meeting and more?

Do jurors agree that Moussaoui was a guesthouse security clerk and driver for al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and that his father had a violent temper?

In those and some other examples, facts are not seriously in dispute; the purpose of making the jury address them is to add weight for or against the case for death.

The panel resumed its work Friday morning after taking Thursday off because a juror was sick. The jury had already deliberated 16 hours over three days.

The minutiae of Sept. 11 and of Moussaoui’s own life are being picked over in the jury room as surely as the staggering death and destruction of buildings and airplanes that day, thanks to a form presented by the judge that steers jurors down myriad avenues of exploration while allowing them to reach their own conclusions.

It’s an elaborate chess game unique to this stage of a death penalty trial, when the defendant’s guilt has been established and the question becomes what penalty is deserved. And it helps explain why deliberations can go for days even when a jury might otherwise agree quickly to a verdict.

The prosecution throws the book at the defendant, alleging a variety of aggravating factors and needing to prove at least one to win a death penalty. The defense responds with a battery of mitigating factors that must be considered if the jury buys enough of the prosecution argument.

“In short, the law does not assume that the defendant before you at this phase of the trial should be sentenced to death,” U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema instructed the jury. “That decision is committed to the jury based on its careful weighing of the aggravating and mitigating factors as found by the jury.”

In this case, prosecutors alleged three main aggravating factors for each of the three counts against Moussaoui. At least one must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. They were that he committed his crimes in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner; that he committed his crimes knowing others besides the intended victims might die; and that he used substantial planning or premeditation.

Then they added seven more aggravating factors, such as a lack of remorse, for the jury to consider separately. These extra factors, known as non-statutory, are optional elements meant to add weight to the federal case.

For any such condition to stick, the jury must accept it unanimously. If none of the three main aggravating factors is proved, the case is over and Moussaoui goes to prison for life.

But if any of the conditions are accepted by the jury, then 23 mitigating circumstances raised by the defense must be weighed, one by one.

Among them: Do jurors agree Moussaoui will not be a substantial risk to guards if imprisoned for life? Do they agree he was an ineffectual al-Qaida operative? Do they think he really believes he will achieve the afterlife rewards of a martyr if he is executed?

Altogether there are 33 such questions, to be weighed up to three times for each separate count.

Unlike the prosecution, the defense does not have to prove its factors beyond a reasonable doubt or achieve unanimity on the jury. If any of the jurors thinks a mitigating factor is more likely true than not true, it becomes a factor for the jury to consider.

There is no formula for assigning weight to various factors, even if jurors do decide they exist. Jurors can decide one aggravating factor outweighs all mitigating factors, or the other way around.

In the end, it still comes down to life or death and what the jurors think. The questions tell them some of what they have to think about.