Brought to you by WBIW News and Network Indiana
Last updated on Monday, April 30, 2018
(INDIANAPOLIS) - Attorney General Curtis Hill is asking the Indiana Supreme Court to reinstate a battery conviction overturned at the Indiana Court of Appeals. By a 2-1 vote, an appellate panel ruled that a deputy prosecutor’s courtroom reference to the ISIS terror group prejudiced a jury against a defendant.
In May of 2017, Moussa Dahab was convicted in Elkhart County Superior Court of battery with a deadly weapon after he struck a co-worker in the head with a metal pipe. Ten months later, the panel majority reversed the conviction, citing supposed prosecutorial misconduct as its reason for voiding the jury's finding of guilt.
In reaching its decision, the panel majority found fault with the deputy prosecutor for saying of the defendant: "Was he part of ISIS? Who knows? That was what he said. Who knows if that's what it really was or if that's what he knew would scare (the man beaten with the metal pipe)."
The majority wrote that "in the post-9/11 era, gratuitously linking a person of Middle Eastern descent to a terrorist organization -- ISIS -- is both unfair and uncalled for."
In a dissenting opinion, however, Judge Cale Bradford correctly identified fallacies in the majority view.
"It is important to note," Bradford writes, "that the term ISIS was only introduced into the facts of this case through Dahab's own words. Dahab himself referenced ISIS during a struggle that occurred after he approached (the victim) and struck him twice in the back of the head with a pipe. Dahab does not dispute on appeal that he referred to ISIS during his attack on (the victim)."
Dahab intended to intimidate his victim by saying "This is ISIS" during the beating, according to testimony. The prosecutor's reference served to highlight this aspect of Dahab's motive in attacking his victim, a native of Iraq, who fled his homeland after receiving threats for working with the U.S. government.
"Given the facts of the case," Attorney General Hill said, "one cannot reasonably conclude that it was gratuitous for the deputy prosecutor to recount the defendant's own words regarding ISIS. Further, the majority strayed from sound legal logic in suggesting that mentioning ISIS is somehow more objectionable in the post-9/11 era. The standard of permissible argument is no different post-9/11 from what it was pre-9/11. The key is whether a prosecutor's words are based on evidence presented at trial, which in this instance was clearly the case.
"We believe Judge Bradford's opinion was the proper analysis, and we look forward to the review of this decision by the Indiana Supreme Court."
See the appellate panel's March 27 decision here.
Click here to see State's petition to the Indiana Supreme Court.
1340 AM WBIW welcomes comments and suggestions by calling 812.277.1340 during normal business hours or by email at comments@wbiw.com
© Ad-Venture Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.