Complex instructions to jury took hour to read

BOISE – The eight women and four men who will determine Sami Al-Hussayen’s guilt or innocence have a complicated task ahead of them.

It took Judge Edward Lodge nearly an hour on Tuesday just to read the jury its instructions – a 58-page compilation of specific findings the jury must make to prove a conspiracy, to find fraud, to identify reasonable doubts and to recognize constitutional rights.

“The jury instructions are critical,” said Nancy Chang, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. “Was his intention to further the unlawful ends of a designated terrorist group, or was he engaged in activities protected by the First Amendment?”

The instructions specifically address that. “The First Amendment of the United States Constitution ensures individuals certain rights and liberties including freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to associate,” they state. “These rights are guaranteed equally to citizens of foreign countries residing in the United States.”

On freedom of speech, the instructions state: “Freedom of speech protects an individual’s or a group’s right to advocate their beliefs even if those beliefs advocate the use of force or violation of law, unless the speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

However, they note, “Freedom of speech is not, however, absolute, and may be regulated in certain instances. The charges in this case do not regulate speech.”

The judge originally had proposed longer and more sweeping descriptions of free-speech protections, but he shortened them after prosecutors strenuously objected.

During closing arguments on Tuesday, lead prosecutor Kim Lindquist told jurors that free speech comes into play in the case only if materials that were posted on the Internet were for “scholarly analysis or just news,” rather than for more sinister ends such as to promote terrorism. Lead defense attorney David Nevin immediately objected. “That’s not the law,” he said.

Lodge told the jurors that the instructions speak for themselves.

As a group, the jury may be well-equipped to deal with the complex instructions. All but two of the jurors have had at least some college, and two hold advanced degrees – coincidentally, from the University of Idaho, where the defendant was studying.

The jurors, all from southern Idaho, range from a lumber yard owner to a banker, a diesel mechanic to a housewife, an optometrist’s assistant to a hospital official.

Nearly all said during jury selection that they own computers and use the Internet.

The jurors, who will not be sequestered, must reach a unanimous decision on their verdict.