The mistrial in the Naveed Haq trial.
Women with scars on their bodies and indelible memories of gunfire struggled to grasp an incongruous truth: After six weeks of testimony, thousands of pages of evidence and eight days of deliberation, a jury couldn't decide on the guilt or innocence of their attacker, Naveed Haq.
Yet even as the victims and prosecutors grappled Wednesday with the mistrial declared in Haq's case, momentum was quickly mounting for a second trial.
. . .
The mistrial was a bitter disappointment for victims, who said they supported prosecutors and a retrial."There is no argument Haq killed [federation employee] Pam [Waechter]. There is no argument he viciously shot five others. There is no argument that he made anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements. Somehow, all this was not enough," federation President and CEO Richard Fruchter said.
I don't know whether the jurors followed Washington state law, whether, in Dickens' phrase, "the law is a ass—a idiot". Or whether one or more jurors merits that label. But I do know this mistrial should not have happened.
My sympathies to the surviving victims, and to the families of all the victims.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at June 05, 2008 03:21 PM | Email ThisThe jury had to ask the judge the definition of insanity in this trial, and the judge refused to give it to them. How are regular folks supposed to know if someone is really insane? Just because the defense found some "expert" to testify as such?
Haq deserves hard time, not some insane asylum for the rest of his life.
Posted by: Palouse on June 5, 2008 03:42 PMHaq drove from the Tri-cities all the way to Seattle.
(showing premeditation and/or intent)
Haq had a 1) Weapon with him and 2) Hollow point bullets as ammunition
(Showing premeditation and/or intent)
Haq sought out the location of the Jewish Fedration Building.
(Showing premeditation and/or intent)
Haq laid in wait until the secured door to the Jewish Federation building was opened and took the opportunity to begin his actions.
(Showing premeditation and/or intent)
Haq shot and wounded a woman who was attempting to call 911
(showing awareness that his actions were wrong)
Haq made utterances and declarations of his faith and referenced the faith of the targeted victims within the facility.
(Showing he was aware of his actions and with intent/and or malice aforethought)
This isn't rocket science, Folks. Let's just sit another 12 Seattle turnips in the jury box and see if they can't get it right next time.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 5, 2008 05:39 PMUm.... Huh???
learn something new everyday I guess.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 5, 2008 06:02 PMLet's not be hasty. Remember, Seattle is all about "diversity". I'm willing to bet there also were a couple of rutabagas and perhaps a parsnip or two serving on that jury.
Posted by: Saltherring on June 5, 2008 06:21 PMIf this state is so sqeamish about the death penalty, then why does it continue to release violent criminals back into the community where those killers wreak their own death penalties upon our innocent neighbors.
Here's a death penalty avoidance solution that I can accept. Employ cryogenic preservation. The type good enough for Ted Williams. Freeze our violent offenders and then stack them like cordwood in minus 173 F lockers.
And then hope for a power outage.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on June 5, 2008 06:23 PM
Mental illness really is a prob for many of us. But when it spills over into ending the lives of others, we need a definition of a crime that encompasses both recidivism and provides society with a sense of justice.
Haq appears to be guilty of a heinous crime. He should be incarcerated for both retribution of society and the protection of others from his potential recidivism.
You think Haq only "APPEARS" guilty of murder.
What more do you need to know about this crime before you are willing to unequivocally accuse him of murder?
If you are leaning on the insanity plea then I say that you and your ilk "APPEAR" guilty to me of aiding and abetting murder throughout our state by supporting such nonsense.
What's your opinion on the Michael Campbell case?
Posted by: Bart Cannon on June 5, 2008 07:06 PMNot having sat on the jury and heard all the evidence, I am in no position to pronounce judgment on Haq's guilt or innocence.
My comment was intended to align myself with Palouse's position that there are forms of insanity that do not comport with societal acceptance. We need a definition of criminal behavior that indicates certain levels of violence are simply not allowed, regardless of the mental condition of the perpetrator.
If you have a problem with that position, please tell us what it is.
I would also like to posit that certain folks are simply just not wired up for this kind of decision making. This is unfortunately a failing of our criminal justice system.
Thanks for your comment.
For example, if a group of people batter someone senseless for an hour, and then one of them drops a gun where the person can grab it, that person is likely to start shooting--possibly with little regard for his exact targets. It may well be that the person ends up killing someone who was innocent of the attack, but even if that occurred I'd hold the shooter largely blameless.
If a firebug were kidnapped from a mental hospital where he had been confined (and kept away from matches, etc.) and then let lose somewhere with some fire-starting materials, and if he started a fire that killed someone, I would not charge him with the murder; he would have been harmless, but for the actions of the kidnapper.
Note that the situation would be totally different if the firebug had escaped from the hospital. In that scenario, the fact that the firebug was in a situation where he could get matches would be a result of his own action.
By the description of this case, I'm really not sure why sanity or insanity should be relevant. The murderer is clearly not a mostly-harmless person who only became dangerous as a result of coinciding factors. Sane or not, he's dangerous and needs to be kept away from society.
Posted by: supercat on June 5, 2008 09:48 PMOf course. If someone if found not guilty by reason of insanity, he is institutionalized as long as he is deemed to be dangerous -- as is anyone considered to be a danger to others. That doesn't provide us with retribution, but it does protect us (to the extent we can predict whether someone is dangerous).
Posted by: Bruce on June 5, 2008 10:21 PMThe physical evidence from the crime leaves absolutely no doubt that Haq planned and committed cold blooded murder.
What I've seen and heard in this case are good enough for me to pronounce that Haq is guilty of murder.
If you have reservations about that determination, then it must be because you are considering by the insanity defense.
It APPEARS that we simply don't agree on the definition of murder and the appropriate punishment for cold blooded killing.
I say insanity adds to the strikes against the criminal rather than giving them protection.
Generally, I believe that anyone who kills an innocent person could be considered insane at the time of the killing. So any murderer is de facto insane.
Skip the insanity defense, skip plea bargains, and punish the justice system for technical flaws in arrests and prosecutions. Don't let a criminal off for weaknesses in the justice system.
Get to the heart of the matter and make protecting innocent citizens the one absolute goal.
I don't think he had any priors. He went nuclear from a standing start.
It's the "long list of prior assualts" description of the criminals we learn about in the headlinse that drives me crazy.
What are they still doing out there among us?
The classic is the "Level Three Sexual Offender". The courts and the mollycoddling social services people have determined that these people "are VERY likely to re-offend".
When these psychopaths are released among us, we decent citizens aren't even as good as guinea pigs for this crazy social experiment. We are turkeys on the week before Thanksgiving.
Question to anyone who can answer. Doesn't Washington still have a "Three Strikes You're Out" law?
Obviously it wouldn't have applied to Haq.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on June 5, 2008 11:30 PMyou're not insane--period; someone needs the Big Sleep;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on June 6, 2008 05:55 AMI hope at the very least he will be retried and put away for life.
Posted by: PeggyU on June 6, 2008 01:51 PM