IRGINIA BEACH, Oct. 20 � John A. Muhammad, accused of
being the mastermind of the Washington-area sniper shootings, fired his
lawyers on Monday and took control of his own defense, telling the jury in
a rambling but at times forceful opening argument that "I had nothing to
do with these crimes."
The surprise move seemed the result of a sharp philosophical clash
between Mr. Muhammad and his three court-appointed lawyers, whose pretrial
motions and remarks suggested they would focus more on avoiding capital
punishment for Mr. Muhammad than on winning an acquittal.
But the moment Mr. Muhammad strode to the lectern to present his
opening statement on Monday morning, he made clear his goal would be to
demonstrate that he was innocent of any crimes and was the victim of an
unjust prosecution built on guesswork.
"They are saying the entire case is based on a theory," said Mr.
Muhammad, who began haltingly in a lisping drawl, but seemed to gain
confidence as he spoke for nearly 30 minutes.
"I'm locked up, I'm denied my constitutional rights, based on a guess,"
said Mr. Muhammad, a 42-year-old former Army sergeant. "What is it about a
human life where we have reduced it, where we can take it, based on a
guess?"
The decision by Circuit Court Judge LeRoy F. Millette Jr. to allow Mr.
Muhammad to represent himself came at the start of a dramatic first day of
arguments and testimony in which the prosecution outlined its extensive
circumstantial evidence linking Mr. Muhammad and the man accused of being
his accomplice, Lee Malvo, to 10 fatal shootings last fall.
Mr. Malvo, who is scheduled to stand trial next month, made a brief
appearance in the courtroom so that a witness could identify him. Wearing
an orange jumpsuit, Mr. Malvo, 18, peered silently at Mr. Muhammad � whom
he has described as his father � before being led away by two sheriff's
deputies.
The witness, a bank employee, testified that she saw Mr. Muhammad and
Mr. Malvo parked outside her office about an hour before the shooting of
Dean H. Meyers while he pumped gas at a Sunoco station in Manassas, Va., on Oct. 9, 2002. The bank was
less than a quarter mile from the Sunoco, the witness said.
Mr. Muhammad faces two murder charges that could result in a death
sentence. Even if he is found guilty, he will probably be prosecuted in
the other killings, a process that could take years.
Experts said that Mr. Muhammad's decision to represent himself would be
particularly significant if he was found guilty, as many experts say is
likely, and the trial moved into a penalty phase when the jury would
decide whether he should be executed. That decision will turn on whether
he can effectively argue that mitigating evidence like mental illness or
childhood problems should call for a sentence of life in prison without
parole.
"If you have good counsel, you have a very good chance of avoiding the
death penalty," said Jamie Orenstein, a former federal prosecutor,
referring to the presentation of mitigating evidence. "If you've got bad
counsel, you're likely to be sentenced to death. Now he's got the very
worst possible counsel."
In a 25-minute discussion at the judge's bench before the opening
arguments, Judge Millette urged Mr. Muhammad to reconsider his motion to
represent himself, saying he had "zero" experience. "It's a mistake to do
this," he told Mr. Muhammad, who stood bolt upright as he listened
intently.
But Mr. Muhammad remained adamant, and the judge granted his motion
with a warning that "self-representation is not a soap box."
"He will be treated as any other attorney would be treated," Judge
Millette told the jury. The judge added that Mr. Muhammad's lawyers would
serve as advisers to assist his questioning of witnesses and preparation
of motions.
Mr. Muhammad has been charged in only one killing, that of Mr. Meyers,
a 53-year-old engineer. But prosecutors intend to introduce evidence in
this trial that he committed as many as 15 other shootings in the
Washington area, Alabama and Louisiana over a seven-week span last
fall.
He has been charged under two Virginia statutes, each carrying the
death penalty. One makes it a capital crime to commit more than one murder
over three years; the other is an antiterrorism law that authorizes the
death penalty for killings intended to intimidate the public or influence
government.
The prosecution contends Mr. Muhammad and Mr. Malvo were trying to
extort $10 million from local governments in exchange for stopping the
killings.
As quixotic as his decision to represent himself appears, Mr. Muhammad
seemed cogent, calm, methodical and aware of the consequences of his
actions.
As he did in last week's jury selection, he listened carefully, taking
assiduous notes on a legal pad and nodding when spoken to by the judge.
Showing his military training, he addressed witnesses and the judge as
"ma'am" or "sir." His objections to the prosecution's examination were
polite and, on at least one occasion, sustained by the judge.
Mr. Muhammad cast his predicament in personal terms, saying his life
and the life of his "son," a reference to Mr. Malvo, were on the line.
"Pay attention, please pay attention," he implored the jury. "Because
right now my life and my son's life is on the line."
Mr. Malvo, who was born in Jamaica, is the son of a woman who tried to
buy forged identification documents from Mr. Muhammad in Antigua in 2000.
The two became inseparable after Mr. Muhammad's former wife took his three
children away. Mr. Muhammad began referring to Mr. Malvo as his son, and
Mr. Malvo has called the older man his father.
Mr. Muhammad suggested a motive for representing himself: that his
lawyers had tried to prevent him from speaking out before and during the
trial, and that he felt the time had come to defend his name
vigorously.
In an apparent reference to his lawyers, he complained that they had
allowed him to be "dehumanized," telling him to "Be quiet. Go to jail.
Don't say anything."
Experts have said that the prosecution, despite having voluminous
circumstantial evidence against the defendants, faces two weaknesses.
First, there are no witnesses who saw Mr. Muhammad fire the weapon. Many
experts say that under Virginia's "triggerman" rule, a defendant must be
shown to commit the murder to be eligible for capital punishment.
Second, the antiterrorism law is untested and, having been originally
written with foreign terrorists in mind, might be challenged as
inappropriate to this case, experts say.
In his opening arguments, James A. Willett, an assistant commonwealth
attorney, attempted to address each issue. Mr. Willett acknowledged that
the prosecution had no witnesses to the shootings, describing the
defendants as too clever to be detected. But he asserted that a mountain
of evidence, including the defendant's fingerprints and DNA found at some
of the shooting scenes, would make for an airtight case against Mr.
Muhammad.
He said ballistics tests had "conclusively" linked a Bushmaster
assault-style weapon found in Mr. Muhammad's Chevrolet Caprice to at least
a dozen of the shootings.
To dramatize the importance of the weapon, Mr. Willett began his
presentation by pulling the rifle, a civilian version of the military's
M-16, from a duffle bag, assembling it before the jury and placing it on
the prosecution's desk. For several minutes, the courtroom was silent
except for the clicking sound of parts snapping together.
"This evidence is not difficult to understand," he said. "The problem
is that there is so much of it."
Mr. Willett suggested that even if Mr. Muhammad did not fire the shot
that killed Mr. Meyers, he played an indispensable role as the "spotter"
on their sniper team, locating targets and giving orders to shoot.
Mr. Willett also explained why the defendants should be viewed as
terrorists. Using slides and a board containing photographs of 16 victims,
he outlined a plot that began with robberies then evolved into an
elaborate scheme that included cryptic notes to the police demanding money
and threats to kill children if the ransom was not paid.
"Robbery is no longer their sole goal," Mr. Willett said. "They now
wish to terrorize."
Mr. Muhammad, wearing the same grayish-green jacket and off-white shirt
he wore throughout jury selection last week, quoted from the Bible, saying
"Ye shall know the truth," and argued that the public had been presented
with a one-sided version of events, calling the descriptions of him "a
dirty glass."
"It is my responsibility to set a clean glass of me, and what really
happened on those days," he said.
Later, he vigorously cross-examined the prosecution's first witness, a
former British military sharpshooter who described classic sniper
techniques and the importance of having two people on a sniper team, one
to shoot and the other to spot targets.
"Have you seen me shoot anyone?" Mr. Muhammad asked.
"I've never seen you before today, sir," the soldier, Mark Spicer,
replied.
