Jose Padilla—More Evidence Requested

The long and circuitous path of Jose Padilla’s prosecution has entered yet another interesting phase. US District Court Judge Marcia Cooke has ordered federal prosecutors to “turn over more detailed evidence to back up allegations that [Mr.] Padilla and two co-defendants conspired to kill, injure, or kidnap people overseas as part of a global Islamic terrorist network.”^[1]

Mr. Padilla’s lawyers are arguing that the federal indictment against him and the others “is ‘very light on facts.’”^[2] According to the attorney for Adham Amin Hassoun, one of the co-defendants, “The government has to tell us: What are these acts they conspired to commit?”^[3]

Judge Cooke has “ordered the government to flesh out its charges by providing defense lawyers with names of unindicted co-conspirators, broad descriptions of intended victims of alleged acts of violence and specifics about false statements [Mr.] Hassoun allegedly made about the meaning of phone calls intercepted by the government.”^[4] AUSA Brian Frazier countered the order by saying that substantial information has been turned over already, and by asking “What is terrorism but a random act of violence? It means anyone could be a victim at any time.”^[5] It seems to be an argument that Judge Cooke agreed with, because she denied the request “for the name of any actual or intended victims, saying those committing terrorist attacks might not know who they were setting out to harm.”^[6]

The government has until July 3 to turn over the information, and it is “not clear how forthcoming the government will be in response to the judge’s order”^[7]

In related news, one Mr. Padilla’s co-defendants, Mr. Hassoun, is seeking to suppress evidence seized by the FBI from his home, “saying the FBI ‘frightened and intimidated’ his wife before seizing a handgun and other key evidence such as documents in Arabic and videotapes.”^[8] The search occurred during Mr. Hassoun’s arrest “on an immigration violation on June 12, 2002,” and the FBI claims that his wife “freely consented in writing to the search.”^[9]

Generally, when a person is coerced into consenting to a search, that is seen as an invalid search, and the evidence is typically excluded.^[10]

---

[1] Curt Anderson, Judge Orders Disclosure of Details in Padilla Terror Case, AP (via Miami Herald), Jun. 21, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Vanessa Blum, Judge Orders More Information for Terror Suspects’ Lawyers, South Florida Sun-Sentinel (via Contra Costa Times), Jun. 20, 2006.
[7] Id.
[8] Anderson, supra note 1.
[9] Id.
[10] Cf. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 424 (1976).