Terror Suspect Trials Often Tripped Up in Court

May 7, 2006 — -- When a jury decided last week Zacarias Moussaui's crimes did not warrant the death penalty, it raised serious questions in many minds about who is being prosecuted in federal terror cases.

In case after case since 9/11, prosecutors have failed to win or simply had to release suspects. The case of Matin Siraj in New York City is what many consider to be a vivid example.

Some legal experts are asking questions about the strength of the government's case, when the defendant is caught on a surveillance tape saying he needs his mother's permission before engaging in jihad.

"I have to, you know, ask my mom's permission," Siraj said on the tape. "Every single thing matters."

Prosecutors released this tape just days ago during the trial of the Pakistani immigrant, who was arrested in 2004 for planning to bomb a subway station in New York City, just days before the Republican National Convention.

Siraj's defense attorneys say he and his alleged accomplice, who later cut a plea deal, were egged on, encouraged and entrapped by a police informant named Osama Dawadi.

Surveillance video captured a curious exchange between Dawadi and Siraj.

"You don't wanna put it there?" Dawadi asked Siraj.

"No."

"Matin, you're out of jihad?" Dawadi said. "Are you gonna back out?"

"No," Siraj said.

Terrorist or Victim?

Siraj's attorney, Martin Stolar, said his client was set up by the government.

"The government is trying to portray my client as a leader. In fact he is the manipulated follower," he said.

New York City Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly says proper procedure was followed.

"Entrapment? No, not that I see," he said. "These men clearly had the statement and the intention to carry out a large-scale criminal act."

While Siraj did at times talk menacingly and did plan the bombing, he had no access to explosives and no links to real terror networks.