Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Terror in the courts: Beginning to assess the impact of terrorism-related prosecutions on domestic criminal law and procedure in the USA

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article explores some of the possible influences of the “war on terror.” It asks whether civilian criminal prosecutions of terrorism-related offenses or suspects may shape or distort domestic criminal law and procedure in the USA. The article identifies issues that may tend to arise in terrorism-related cases and suggests categories of prosecutions that may be more or less likely to influence the development of domestic law. It ends with several specific suggestions for further research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A note about terminology—As I later explain, there is much debate about how to classify cases as related to terrorism or anti-terrorism. For now, I use the term “terrorism-related” broadly, to signify cases and prosecutions that involve terrorist acts, attempts to disrupt alleged terrorist organizations, and even prosecutions for crimes that are not specifically linked to such acts or organizations, but were uncovered during a search for them.

  2. Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, http://trac.syr.edu/.

  3. United States v. Ressam, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 4316 (May 19, 2008).

  4. On April 1, 2008, I entered the “anonymous tip” case (Illinois v. Gates) into the “Shepard’s” database of Lexis, restricting my search to court rulings. I found that Gates has been cited by courts 11,307 times. A similar search of the “good faith exception” opinion (United States v. Leon) showed 5,346 judicial citations. Harmelin, the Eighth Amendment ruling, has been cited by courts 2,640 times. The vast majority of the court decisions in the database are from appellate courts. These searches therefore do not reflect the extent to which these cases are relied upon by trial courts to decide suppression and other motions.

  5. The anti-terrorism category also has sub-categories denoted environmental, immigration, OCDETF drugs, non-OCDETF drugs, violent crimes, and “other” [44].

  6. There have been some concerns about coding errors, though EOUSA asserts that any such errors are within acceptable limits [10, 48]. It is not clear that these concerns have been resolved within DOJ. For its part, TRAC does not correct or audit specific entries, though it has sought to assess the general reliability of the EOUSA database. “[O]n the whole TRAC’s analyses have generally found the criminal data to be of relatively high quality as compared with other government administrative data sources. For example, the counts produced on a national level for federal prosecutions and convictions for tax fraud and drug offenses generally mirror the counts independently published by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts” [43].

  7. http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov. The PACER Service Center links to the dockets of the various district courts, and also allows retrieval of many electronically-filed documents. A number of documents are also archived on FindLaw, on a web page that collects war on terrorism cases (http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/terrorism/cases/index.html).

References

  1. Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Statistics Division (n.d.). Statistical tables for the federal judiciary 2001. Retrieved April 5, 2008, from http://www.uscourts.gov/stats/dec01/index.html.

  2. Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Statistics Division (n.d.). Statistical tables for the federal judiciary 2006. Retrieved April 5, 2008, from http://www.uscourts.gov/stats/dec06/index.html.

  3. Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99–570, Title I, 21 U.S.C. §§801, et seq.

  4. Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100–690, Title VI, 21 U.S.C. §§801, et seq.

  5. Beck, A. J., & Gilliard, D. K. (1995 August). Prisoners in 1994 (NCJ-151654). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blumstein, A., & Beck, A. J. (1999). Population growth in U.S. prisons, 1980–1996. In M. Tonry, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research, 26 (pp. 17–61). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1993, June). Drugs, crime, and the justice system: Technical appendix (NCJ-139578). Washington, D.C.

  8. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005), Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics—2003 (NCJ-208756). Washington, D.C.

  9. Chesney, R. M. (2005). The sleeper scenario: Terrorism-support laws and the demands of prevention. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 42(1), 1–89.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chesney, R. M. (2007). Federal prosecution of terrorism-related offenses: Conviction and sentencing data in light of the “soft-sentence” and “data-reliability” critiques. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 11(4), 851–901.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chesney, R. M., & Goldsmith, J. L. (2008). Terrorism and the convergence of criminal and military detention models. Stanford Law Review, 60(4), 1079–1133.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Classified Information Procedures Act (1980), 18 U.S.C. App. 3 §§1, et seq.

  13. Cole, D. (1999). No equal justice: Race and class in the American criminal justice system. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Doyle, C. (2005, August 11). Material support of terrorists and foreign terrorist organizations: Sunset amendments (Order Code RL33035). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service Retrieved March 25, 2008, from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33035.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Drumbl, M. A. (2007). The expressive value of prosecuting and punishing terrorists: Hamdan, the Geneva Conventions, and international criminal law. George Washington Law Review, 75(5/6), 1165–1199.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dubber, M. D. (2001). Policing possession: The war on crime and the end of criminal law. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 91(4), 829–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Epstein, L., Ho, D. E., King, G., & Segal, J. A. (2005). The Supreme Court during crisis: How war affects only non-war cases. New York University Law Review, 80(1), 1–116.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Federal Bureau of Investigation (1990). The FBI drug program. Washington, D.C.

  19. Federal Bureau of Prisons (2008). Quick facts about the Bureau of Prisons [Electronic version]. Retrieved March 27, 2008, from http://www.bop.gov/about/facts.jsp.

  20. Fisher, G. L. (2006). Rethinking our war on drugs: Candid talk about controversial issues. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Foley, W. E. (1980). Annual report of the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Washington, D.C.

  22. Froomkin, M. (2007, July 17). On “outrageous” government conduct. Posted to discourse.net, archived at http://www.discourse.net/archives/2007/07/on_outrageous_government_conduct.html.

  23. German, M. (2007). Trying enemy combatants in civilian courts. George Washington Law Review, 75(5/6), 1421–1442.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Guiora, A. N., & Parry, J. T. (2008). Light at the end of the pipeline? Choosing a forum for suspected terrorists [Electronic version]. University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra, 156, 356–78 Retrieved March 4, 2008, from http://www.pennumbra.com/debates/debate.php?did = 15.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hinojosa, R. H. (2008, February 12). Statement of Ricardo H. Hinojosa, Chair, United States Sentencing Commission, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://www.ussc.gov/testimony/Hinososa_Testimony_021208.pdf.

  26. Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act of 2004, §6603, 18 U.S.C. §2339B.

  27. Johnson, B. D., Golub, A., & Dunlap, E. (2000). The rise and decline of hard drugs, drug markets, and violence in inner-city New York. In A. Blumstein, & J. Wallman (Eds.), The crime drop in America (pp. 164–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kamin, S. (2007). How the war on terror may affect domestic interrogations: The 24 effect. Chapman Law Review, 10(3), 693–712.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kleiman, M. A. R., & Smith, K. D. (1990). State and local drug enforcement: In search of a strategy. In M. Tonry, & J. Q. Wilson (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research, 13 (pp. 69–108). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Meyer, J. (2008, April 1). Pentagon pursues Guantanamo tribunal for embassy bombing suspect. Los Angeles Times, p. A11.

  31. Military Commissions Act of 2006, §3(a)(1), 10 U.S.C. §948c.

  32. Mukasey, M. B. (2007, August 22). Jose Padilla makes bad law: Terror trials hurt the nation even when they lead to convictions. Wall Street Journal, p. A15.

  33. Priester, B.J. (2007). Who is a “terrorist”? Drawing the line between criminal defendants and military enemies. Florida State University College of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 264. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id = 1009845.

  34. Provine, D. M. (2007). Unequal under law: Race in the war on drugs. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Pusey, A. (2007, September). Every terrorism case since 9/11. ABA Journal, p. 16.

  36. Sabol, W. J., Couture, H., & Harrison, P. M. (2007 December). Prisoners in 2006 (NCJ-219416). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Saltzburg, S. A. (2007). A different war: Ten key questions about the war on terror. George Washington Law Review, 75(5/6), 1021–1048.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Scheindlin, S. A., & Schwartz, M. L. (2004). With all due deference: Judicial responsibility in a time of crisis. Hofstra Law Review, 32(3), 795–852.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime: how the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sklansky, D. S. (1995). Cocaine, race, and equal protection. Stanford Law Review, 47(7), 1283–1322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Stuntz, W. J. (2002). Local policing after the terror. Yale Law Journal, 111(8), 2138–2194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Taylor Jr., S. (2008 March 24). No martyrs please: To avoid world anger, the United States shouldn’t execute Gitmo detainees. Legal Times, p. 54.

  43. Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (n.d.). About the data: Federal prosecutor database. Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://tracfed.syr.edu/help/data/eousaData.html.

  44. Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (n.d.). TRACREPORTS: Department of justice program categories covering terrorism. Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/terrorism/169/include/help.html.

  45. Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (2006, September 4). TRACREPORTS: Criminal terrorism enforcement in the United States during the five years since the 9/11/01 attacks. Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/terrorism/169/.

  46. Turner, S., & Schulhofer, S. J. (2005). The secrecy problem in terrorism trials. Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. Retrieved December 3, 2007, from http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/the_secrecy_problem_in_terrorism_trials/.

  47. U.S. Department of Justice (2006, June 22). Counterterrorism White Paper. Washington, D.C. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/terrorism/169/include/terrorism.whitepaper.pdf.

  48. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division (2007 February). The Department of Justice’s internal controls over terrorism reporting (Audit Rep. 07–20). Washington, D.C. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/plus/a0720/final.pdf.

  49. U.S. General Accounting Office (2003 January). Justice Department: Better management oversight and internal controls needed to ensure accuracy of terrorism-related statistics (GAO-03–266). Washington, D.C. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03266.pdf.

  50. U.S. Sentencing Commission (1991 August). Special report to the Congress: Mandatory minimum penalties in the federal criminal justice system. Washington, D.C.

  51. U.S. Sentencing Commission (2007 May). Report to the Congress: Cocaine and federal sentencing policy. Washington, D.C. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/cocaine2007.pdf.

  52. U.S. Sentencing Commission (2007 November). Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Washington, D.C. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://www.ussc.gov/2007guid/TABCON07.html.

Cases

  1. Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143 (1944).

  2. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991).

  3. Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003).

  4. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000).

  5. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004).

  6. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991).

  7. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).

  8. Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104 (1985).

  9. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978).

  10. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).

  11. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).

  12. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981).

  13. Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942).

  14. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004).

  15. Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006).

  16. Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315(1959).

  17. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996).

  18. United States v. Bin Laden, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1669 (S.D.N.Y. February 7, 2005).

  19. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).

  20. United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999).

  21. United States v. Ressam, 474 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2007).

  22. United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973).

  23. United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998).

  24. United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994).

  25. United States v. Stein, 495 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).

  26. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990).

  27. United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003).

  28. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).

Case Materials

  1. Transcript of Oral Argument, Chavez v. Martinez, No. 01–1444 (U.S. December 4, 2002). Retrieved March 31, 2008, from http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html.

  2. Sworn charges, United States v. Ahmed Khafan Ghailani (March 31, 2008). Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://www.defenselink.mil/news/commissionsGhailani.html.

  3. Declaration of Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby (USN), Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Padilla v. Bush, No. 02 Civ 4445 (MBM) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2003). Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://www.pegc.us/archive/Padilla_vs_Rumsfeld/Jacoby_declaration_20030109.pdf.

  4. Superseding Indictment, United States v. Padilla, No. 04–600001-CR-COOKE (S.D. Fl. Nov. 17, 2005) (Doc. 141). Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/terrorism/cases/index.html#padilla.

  5. Motion to Dismiss for Outrageous Government Conduct, United States v. Padilla, No. 04–600001-CR-COOKE (S.D. Fl. Oct. 4, 2006) (Doc. 597). Retrieved December 6, 2007, from http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/.

  6. Government’s Opposition to Defendant Padilla’s Motion In Limine to Preclude Admission of Statements, United States v. Padilla, No. 04–600001-CR-COOKE (S.D. Fl. Jan. 31, 2007) (Doc. 819). Retrieved December 6, 2007, from http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/.

  7. Order Denying Defendant Padilla’s Motion to Dismiss for Outrageous Government Conduct, United States v. Padilla, No. 04–600001-CR-COOKE (S.D. Fl. April 9, 2007) (Doc. 969). Retrieved December 6, 2007, from http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/.

  8. Brief for the Respondent, United States v. Ressam, No. 07–456 (U.S. February 2008). Retrieved March 25, 2008, from http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/march08.shtml#ressam.

  9. Transcript of Oral Argument, United States v. Ressam, No. 07–456 (U.S. March 25, 2008). Retrieved March 25, 2008, from http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html.

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Peter Grabosky, David Onek, colleagues at Boalt Hall and participants at the Community Policing in Three Dimensions Conference at The Australian National University for engaging me in this topic and provoking me to write about it. My thanks also to the Berkeley Center for Criminal Justice for co-sponsoring the Conference and to Christine Nam for her editorial assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Berkeley, CA, 94720-7200, USA

    Charles D. Weisselberg

Authors
  1. Charles D. Weisselberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles D. Weisselberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weisselberg, C.D. Terror in the courts: Beginning to assess the impact of terrorism-related prosecutions on domestic criminal law and procedure in the USA. Crime Law Soc Change 50, 25–46 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-008-9118-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-008-9118-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation