You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Judge says it was fair to sentence terrorists day of Boston Marathon bombings
2013-05-22
A federal judge has denied the motions of a North Bergen man and Elmwood Park man who argued that their sentencing for a terrorism-related crime on the same day as the Boston Marathon was unfair.

The ruling signed today by District Court Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise will let stand the 22-year-sentence he meted out to Mohamed Alessa, 23, of North Bergen and 20-year-sentence received by codefendant Carlos Almonte, 27.

After the April 15 sentencings, defense attorneys sought a new sentencing, arguing that the prosecution's knowledge of the bombing allowed them to alter their presentation to focus on the vulnerability of targets in the New York area, rather then on the defendants themselves, according to Debovoise's opinion.

In the motion filed April 29, they also argued Debevoise learned of the bombing prior to sentencing the pair that day, but that the defense was not aware of the bombing prior to the sentencing.

The judge said that the defense attorneys' recollection of the hearing was faulty. Two assistant US attorneys gave presentations and the one focusing on the vulnerability of targets went first and it was before word of the Boston bombings reached the court, the opinion says.

Debevoise notes that the prosecutor then invited the second prosecutor to "talk about the individual characteristics of the defendants."

The judge also noted that the sentencing process involved thousands of pages of documents reviewed over a long period of time and his 43-page statement of the reasons for the sentences was compiled long before the bombings.

The judge said there was a potential for terrorist attacks by the defendants in the United States and as such, there was no reason the prosecution would not have referred to potential targets while arguing for 30-year sentences, the opinion said.
Posted by:tipper

00:00