2nd Circuit: Affirms Lawyer Lynne Stewart 's Terrorism Conviction, Revokes Bail

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals today affirmed the convictions of defense lawyer Lynne Stewart, whose phone calls with her client Sheikh Omar Ahmad Ali Abdel Rahman were taped at the MCC, and her codefendants on all charges, including providing material support to terrorists.

The opinion is here. The Court did not uphold the sentence, and remanded for resentencing:

We therefore remand the cause to the district court for further consideration of her sentence, in light of, among other things, the charges of perjury against her and of any other matter it deems necessary or advisable, and direct the court to revoke Stewart's and Yousry's bail pending appeal and to order them to surrender to the United States Marshal to begin serving their sentences forthwith.


The trial judge sentenced Stewart to 28 months. Obviously, the Court of Appeals thinks she should have gotten more time. The Appeals Court directed the trial court to make a determination as to whether she committed perjury at her trial and whether the abuse of special skill or trust enhancement should have applied. Even though it says her codefendants were sentenced correctly, it remanded their sentences as well.

Huge disappointment of an opinion, from the sentencing issue to its upholding the conviction on providing material support to terrorists. (My view of the conviction is here.) Also discussed: FISA, CIPA, taping attorney-client calls and the NSA wiretapping.

< Reconciliation | Tuesday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Not surprising (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:42:05 AM EST

    Well (none / 0) (#1)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:37:26 AM EST
    she sure looked guilty in that riveting Law & Order episode based on her case, that's for sure.

    On a more separate note, I don't really understand these administrative restrictions that always get placed on the defense attorneys in terrorism cases.  I mean, I understand the basic need, but the restrictions always seem to be a lot broader than they need to be.  Wasn't there a recent case where the DOJ went after an attorney for disclosing a supposedly classified document to President Obama?!

    Well, as a general matter I might agree (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:42:59 AM EST
    but I cannot agree that what Stewart was accused of doing should be allowed.

    i'm curious, (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:34:23 PM EST
    were timothy mcveigh's attorneys operating under the same types of restrictions?

    I don't know why you would be (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 03:46:42 PM EST
    curious unless you disagree with verdict.

    In any event I would say McVeigh didn't have thousands of buds all frothing to attack the US.


    BTW, as a matter of personal interest, (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 01:19:06 PM EST
    concurring judge Walker, who writes separately so say that Stewart deserved a longer sentence, is apparently Walker as in "George W."

    god, there are more of them lurking about? (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 02:11:16 PM EST
    How long is it going to take to purge the system?

    Here is a quote .. (none / 0) (#8)
    by nyrias on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:59:02 PM EST
    from the article:

    "She was tried along with interpreter Mohamed Yousry for a plot to pass messages from Sheikh Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for seditious conspiracy--a violation of Special Administrative Measures put in place to muzzle the sheikh and prevent him from signaling Islamic Group to abandon a cease-fire on terror attacks."

    If this is true, she deserves a much LONGER sentence. She is helping this guy to incite his followers (abandon a cease-fire) for more violence.