http://snipurl.com/78v0 21 Jun 2004 23:23:56 GMT Reuters
Lawyers' rights tested in US terror cases By Gail Appleson NEW YORK, June 21 (Reuters) - A controversial case pitting a lawyer's freedom to represent clients against what many see as a Bush administration attempt to chip away at civil rights in the name of fighting terrorism will go to trial this week. The prosecution of Lynne Stewart, a well-known New York civil rights lawyer, has triggered an uproar among American defense attorneys who say it represents a dangerous strike against a lawyer's ability to fully represent a client. "It strikes deep into the hearts of lawyers everywhere," said Jeffrey Fogel, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "It is an extraordinary attack on the legal system because it attacks the independent voice of lawyers and the cherished right for attorneys to have confidential conversations with their clients," he added. Stewart is accused of breaking the law by helping her imprisoned client, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, a radical Muslim cleric, communicate with the Islamic Group. Prosecutors say the group is a terrorist organization that sees the cleric as its spiritual leader. Abdel-Rahman is serving a life sentence after being convicted in 1995 of urging followers to bomb U.S. landmarks, including the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. A jury of eight women and four men were selected by the end of the afternoon on Monday and opening statements are set to begin on Tuesday morning. The panel is anonymous with jurors' names and personal information being kept confidential. The charges allege that, after 1997, Stewart helped Abdel-Rahman violate prison restrictions aimed at stopping him from passing on communications that could result in violence. The measures restricted his access to mail, the media, telephones and visitors. Among the allegations is that Stewart told a Reuters reporter in 2000 that the cleric had withdrawn his support for the Islamic Group's cease-fire in Egypt. 'DEPLORABLE CONDUCT' While many lawyers are critical of the case, some say Stewart is no heroine. Sherry Colb, a Rutgers law professor, wrote an article last year saying Stewart is accused of communicating an order to kill people. "This is deplorable conduct," she wrote. "It further brings shame to a profession that depends on lawyers' ability to remember that no matter what anyone says of us, we are not and must never become hired guns." But others say Stewart was carrying out her pledged duty to defend her client and that evidence against her, which includes hours of government taped conversations with her imprisoned client, violates attorney client confidentiality. They also believe the 64-year-old Stewart, a familiar figure in New York courts, is being singled out because she has a reputation as a left-leaning lawyer and political activist who has represented unpopular clients. "No doubt they wanted to target her because of her clients," Fogel said, adding that the case might scare other lawyers from taking terrorism-related cases. Gerald Lefcourt, a past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said those who do take such cases might not be as zealous as they should be. "It is already having a chilling effect," he said, explaining that lawyers who take terrorism cases fear their conversations will be intercepted by the government and thus will not have frank discussions with their clients. "What's the point of having an attorney if you can't have confidences," he said.
