Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> TalkLeft

Legal Commentary

: TalkLeft

Najibullah Zazi Arrives At MDC Brooklyn; Colo. Lawyer To Represent Him in NY Case

By Jeralyn

Najibullah Zazi, who was ordered detained pending trial in NY and flown to NY today, will be housed in solitary confinement in a maximum security wing at the Metropolitan Correction Center in Brooklyn.

His lawyer, Arthur Folsom, who has never defended a client in federal court and who allowed him to be questioned for 23 hours by the FBI last week, told the Court in Denver today that he and another Colorado lawyer (who practiced in New York more than 20 years ago) will continue to represent Zazi in the NY case -- the case in which he is charged with a terrorism offense carrying a potential life penalty. The Magistrate Judge in Colorado confirmed this with Zazi, asking him whether he wanted a public defender to be appointed in NY. Zazi declined, stating he intended to keep his present counsel.

So Arthur Folsom and his new co-counsel will be traveling back and forth to NY to represent Zazi. (Only the co-counsel will appear Tuesday, presumably because it will take longer than that for Folsom to submit all the paperwork to get admitted to practice in federal court in NY or even admitted pro hac vice.) [More...]

A few questions arise from these new developments: Who is funding Zazi's defense? While by now I probably shouldn't be surprised at anything Arthur Folsom does, I can't believe he'd represent Zazi, who recently declared bankruptcy, particularly in a major terror case, on his own dime.

Aside from legal fees, as I asked the other day, who will help Folsom pay the cost of experts needed to assist the defense? Handwriting computer, fingerprint, explosive and terrorism experts will be required, at a minimum. Most lawyers would also use a jury selection expert.

Zazi's father has the public defender, so his family isn't footing the bill.

Which brings me to the next question: Does Arthur Folsom know something we don't know? Is the NY case against Zazi a phony case, meaning a plea deal already has been worked out but is being kept under wraps while Zazi continues cooperating? Is putting Zazi in solitary in a maximum security unit meant to give his associates a false sense of security? Arthur Folsom may be inexperienced and Zazi may have played him like a fiddle, but he isn't stupid. Are Folsom, Zazi and the FBI playing out a charade for the public?

Or, is another scenario at work? If Zazi really was planning on setting off a bomb, why did he go to the media to proclaim his innocence immediately upon his return from NY, even before he met with Folsom? Was he making sure his associates would know the plan had been discovered and alterations needed to be made or a Plan B put into effect? Could he be a minor player taking the fall, hoping the distraction, first of his innocence protestation and then his ultimate Indictment, would allow the major players to keep plotting and succeed?

In other words, did Zazi play Folsom and the FBI rather than the other way around? Was his real intent to distract the FBI by feeding them false information and sending them on wild goose chases?

Zazi is presumed innocent. For all the allegations swirling around, the Government has not proven anything yet. An indictment is only an accusation, it is not proof. The Government submitted evidence by proffer today -- a narrative by the prosecutor -- not witness testimony. It presented its theory that Zazi intended to set off a bomb in NY on the anniversary of 9/11.

As we all know from the umpteen DNA exonerations we've seen in rape and murder cases, when an innocent person has been wrongly charged or convicted, the result is the true perpetrator remains at large, able to strike again. I hope the Zazi case isn't a variation of this -- that while he's soaking up all the attention and resources of law enforcement, other bad apples are lurking in the shadows, shielded by his coat-tails, proceeding with some really dangerous plot.

It's far too soon to congratulate anyone in this case. Or to conclude anything -- and that includes deciding whether Zazi is a bomb-making terrorist, whether his lawyer is as clueless as he has acted and been portrayed and whether the feds really stopped a terror attack.

[Our prior coverage of the Zazi case is assembled here.]

Full post as published by TalkLeft on September 25, 2009 (boomark / email).