Jose Padilla Ruled Competent to Stand Trial

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Trials
Posted on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 06:59:45 PM EST
Tags: Jose Padilla (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A federal judge in Miami today found that Jose Padilla is competent to stand trial.

"This defendant clearly has the capacity to assist his attorneys," Cooke said just hours after she finished four days of competency hearings.

....Cooke said testimony in the competency hearing showed that Padilla understands "legal nuances" of pretrial motions and noted that he had signed a document verifying the truth of allegations made by the defense that he was tortured and mistreated during his years in a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. "At some time, the defendant was able to discuss some things with his lawyers," Cooke said. "The defendant's situation is unique. He understands that."

Padilla had no reaction in court to the decision. I'm not surprised. He probably had no idea what was going on.

More....

On the issue of whether he was mistreated while at the Brig, the Judge said:

Bush administration officials vehemently deny that Padilla was mistreated, and Cooke said her decision on competency should not be read as a ruling on those claims. "That discussion is for another day," she said.

How is the discussion of whether he was mistreated irrelevant to the allegation that it was his mistreatment that caused him to become unresponsive and unable to assist his lawyers in his defense? I would think they go together hand in hand.

< Ga. Legislators Target Pot-Flavored Candy | Former Rep. Bob Ney to Report to Prison >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Jose Padilla Ruled Competent to Stand Trial | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I don't get this (none / 0) (#1)
by Edger on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 08:33:05 PM EST

The AP article states that

Padilla is competent to stand trial on terrorism support charges, rejecting arguments that he was severely damaged by 3 1/2 years of interrogation and isolation in a military brig

and that Judge Marcia Cooke says

her decision on competency should not be read as a ruling on those claims [and goes on to say] "That discussion is for another day,"

yet still rules that

"This defendant clearly has the capacity to assist his attorneys,"

It appears to me that she has in some and perhaps more than one sense made a "ruling on those claims" since the claims are made to support defense contentions that he is incapable.

Is she not by rejecting them "ruling" on them?

And what kind of definition of "capacity to assist" is being used here? If one of his lawyers drops a pencil and Padilla is capable of picking it up and handing it back to his lawyer that would demonstrate some "capacity to assist" of course, but would be no indication that he understands what is happening to him in the course of the trial or how the trial has become one of the things "happening" to him, or what the ramifications of his actions or statements during the trial would be.

It seems to me that Cooke is covering her own ass here. By avoiding putting herself in a position of having ruled in favor of the defense she has ruled in favor of the prosecution yet is trying to confuse that point and deny having done so.

This is a case of everyone running for cover at not only Padilla's expense, but at the expense of anyone who ever expects and has the right to fair and honest treatment with integrity by the justice system.

Sickening... This is not justice. The legal manouverings and contortions have become part of Padilla's ongoing torture and mistreatment.

It is more and more apparent, (none / 0) (#2)
by Edger on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 08:51:11 PM EST

and I believe that, as I said the other day:

This is not a trial of Jose Padilla.
It is the continuing trial of the government and the Bush Administration, and more specifically it is a trial of George W. Bush, who leads that government, and of Bush's supporters.
Only from the far side of the looking glass can it be considered a trial of Jose Padilla.

Even if from a strictly legal standpoint Cooke's ruling is right, it is running for cover more than ensuring justice is meted out.


: Today's hearing (none / 0) (#5)
by Edger on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 10:14:53 PM EST

was also a hearing on the competency of the justice system itself.

As I explained last week... (none / 0) (#3)
by Gabriel Malor on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:22:47 PM EST

Jeralyn, as I tried to explain once before, even if the judge had gone beyond the scope of the competency determination and held that Padilla was tortured, that holding does not automatically mean that he is incompetent to stand trial.

He could have been tortured to within an inch of his life, but if he's alert, responsive, and able to assist in his own defense then he is competent to stand trial.

Edger, the reason she has not made a ruling on the claims of torture is that such a ruling is beyond the scope of the competency hearing. At this stage, all she is supposed to do is determine if he is capable of standing trial. She is most definitely not supposed to make any other rulings in a competency hearing (for example, as to his guilt for his alleged crimes).

If even Bush supporters are incapable (none / 0) (#4)
by Edger on Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 09:47:57 PM EST

of understanding what this trial is about and who, in the eyes of the world it is a trial of, that alone should make it clear to them that Padilla cannot understand it and is therefore incapable of assisting in his own defence. Particularly in light of that fact that he believes that his own defence lawyers are part of ongoing inerrogation and mistreatment of him by the government:

One of Padilla's lawyers, Andrew Patel, testified earlier in the day that he has been involved with Padilla since 2002 and has never been able to get meaningful information out of him. Patel also said that Padilla seems to think his lawyers are part of a government plot against him.
"He has expounded the belief that we are part of the continuing interrogation," Patel said.

: Edger, Padilla is getting due process. (none / 0) (#6)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 06:47:06 AM EST

That's all. Nothing more or less.
You oviously want to turn it into a trial over his alleged treatment.
You're not getting what you want.

I wonder what the odds are ... (none / 0) (#7)
by Sailor on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 09:45:07 AM EST

... that he'd get a judge who was appointed by bush in 2004?

Bush and his supporters are (none / 0) (#8)
by Edger on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 09:56:41 AM EST

not getting what they want, but they are getting due process, from the only jury that matters.

According (none / 0) (#9)
by jondee on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 10:00:07 AM EST

to Herr Pokerputz's redefinition of "due process", the question of humane or inhumane treatment of prisoners is irrelevant.

This from the hypocrite who evoked the Nazis on another thread.

Jondoo (none / 0) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 05:11:57 PM EST

Your inability to debate is marvelous. You ask a question regarding consensus science and I answer that eugenics is a great example, nothing that racists and nazis loved it...

And now you bring it up, as a smear, though God only knows how you think that knowing racists and nazis embraced eugenics is somehow "bad."

Perhaps you were not aware of the subject, although I would think anyone as conscious as race as you would be very up to date on the subject.

I would say I would ignore you, but your comments amuse me too much and make my point regarding your various failures.

Do keep trying.


: OFF TOPIC (none / 0) (#15)
by Sailor on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 09:28:38 PM EST

and yet another personal attack:

Your inability to debate is marvelous.
[...]
I would say I would ignore you, but your comments amuse me too much and make my point regarding your various failures.

Jose Padilla (none / 0) (#10)
by Dulcinea on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:57:47 PM EST

Jeralyn,

Any chance you will be live blogging the Padilla trial?

It's not surprising ... (none / 0) (#11)
by Sailor on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 05:03:52 PM EST

... that a judge bush appointed in 2004 made this ruling.

It is amazing that an American citizen being held w/o charges for years in solitary confinement while being tortured is not germane.

OTOH, I'm surprised the gov't didn't go for the incompetent part. They could have held him for more years w/o a trial.

Sure (none / 0) (#13)
by jondee on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 05:39:25 PM EST

Jim, and being a Southern Democrat in the sixties somehow magically makes you a former "liberal" lol.

Now, explain in more detail how the treatment of prisoners is irrelevant to the concept of due process.

Jondee makes stuff up... (none / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 08:39:17 PM EST

I never said that.

I said he was getting due process. Part of it was being tested to see if his claim of ill treatment rendered him incapable of standaing trial at this time.

I was a liberal and I am a liberal. You are not, and you demonstrate that everytime you make a comment.

Please continue to make yourself look poor.


: another personal attack (none / 0) (#16)
by Sailor on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 09:29:50 PM EST

Please continue to make yourself look poor.