Left-wing heroine / NY criminal defense attorney Lynne Steward went on trial today: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=5486550 -peekay
Defending those guys is a tough job -- I couldn't do it, but someone has to. I'd be interested to see what the evidence against her is though - the article was vague.
As a self-proclaimed "radical", Stewart is a long time supporter of anti-capitalist causes. In the past she has publicly claimed that "directed violence" and "armed struggle" (read: terrorism) may be justified effect change. Post 9/11, she raised eyebrows when she dismissed terror victims as collateral damage. According to her, radical groups had "no other way" to further their cause. She makes no distinction between the war in Iraq and slamming airliners into buildings... simply two sides of the same struggle. Still, we live in a free society; she should be allowed to believe in whatever misguided leftist propaganda she subscribes to, without fear of incarceration. I mean, with her views, she'd barely come in center-left in Canada. Having said that, the evidence against her is pretty damning. Two years ago, portions of a sealed FBI affidavit relating to the case was leaked to Court TV (see: The Smoking Gun archive.) From the affidavit it's clear that she masked secret prison conversations between Sheikh Abdel Rahman and his translator. In one transcription Stewart even quipped that she could win "an award" for her performance in deceiving the prison guards. She also blatantly violated SAMs placed on Abdel Rahman by issuing a press release announcing Rahman's withdrawal from a cease-fire agreement... a signal to his terror group to start killing tourists in Egypt. I'm not convinced that (revised) terrorism counts against her will stick. Stewart (and her lawyer) are obviously extremely capable attorneys and there are some significant constitutional questions raised in this case. Unfortunately for her, though, even if she were to prevail she will likely face disbarment for her award-winning performance, effectively ending her career. -peekay
Holy shit!! If she is convicted or pleads guilty to a felony her license to practice in NY is GONE! Not sure if she violated an ethical rule that would require her disbarment though. Being a political wacko is not reason to be denied, btw.
A very good NYTimes article on the case (prior to the revised charges), based on interviews with Ms. Stewart: http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3288 I found the range of reactions from other prominent defense attorneys were especially interesting. On the disbarment side, since there are audio and video recordings of her attempting to deceive federal prison officials... almost certainly a disbarment hearing will be held against her, and I think it would be very tough for her to beat the "clear and convincing" standard. I suppose she could face a lengthy suspension + fine instead. -peekay
