Lipshultz decided there was reasonable doubt that Awadallah purposefully lied about his encounters with one hijacker, especially since he readily admitted seeing another hijacker dozens of times when he worked with him at a San Diego gas station.
Other jurors accused Lipshultz of refusing to deliberate, but they really meant that he refused to agree with their view of the evidence. The judge, Shira Scheindlin, spoke to Lipschultz and decided that he was doing his job in good faith. His different take on the evidence simply proves the value of having twelve people, rather than one, decide guilt.
"I believe he just disagreed with them virtually throughout the deliberations, and he wasn't able to convince them and they weren't able to convince him. If we go around calling that a refusal to deliberate, we're essentially not accepting dissent, and I can't do that. That's the jury system," she said.
Some jurors may have been inclined to convict because the defendant's name is Osama.
He said other jurors accused him of lacking passion as he argued his view and that one juror made a reference to another terrorism trial and questioned how he could let someone go when terrorists were trying to blow people up.
That's the kind of comment that should make everyone shudder. Awadallah's trial wasn't about what others have done, and the jury's deliberations were not a referendum on the war against terror. Lipschultz, at least, thought the government should be required to prove its case.
Lipshultz said he wished his country would show courage when a massive investigation of an individual turns up skimpy evidence.
"I'm not perfect. I make mistakes. I'm as big a fool as anybody," he said. "At least I try to do the right thing. I think the FBI and the State Department is big enough to do that too."
