Criminal defense attorneys have long objected to “experts” produced at trials by the Justice Department who often seem to closely follow trial theories rather than scientific or forensic data. I have handled cases where experts used by the Justice Department gave almost laughable testimony filled with errors in national security cases but courts continue to admit their testimony. This week, one such expert, FBI Special Agent Steven Kimball, fell apart on the stand when confronted with clearly conclusions over basic and easily ascertainable facts.
Tsarnaev’s defence attorney Miriam Conrad for example noted that the FBI identified a picture sent on the twitter account of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a picture of Mecca. This led to this exchange:
Conrad: “You said the picture [that forms the background of the second account] was a picture of Mecca.”
Kimbell: “Yes, to the best of my knowledge.”
Conrad: “Did you bother to look at a picture of Mecca?”
Kimbell: “No.”
Conrad: “Would it surprise you to learn that it is a picture of Grozny?”
Unfortunately, he might not be surprised at all given the loose standards imposed on such expert testimony.
Kimball was also forced to admit that highly incriminating tweets isolated by the Justice Department were actually quotes from pop songs, including a tweet referring to “I shall die young.” Kimball said that he was unaware that these were quotes from songs. Kimball admitted that he did not even click on some links in tweets cited by the government as incriminating. One of the links would have taken the reader to a song with the line “I shall die young.”
Kimball was also confronted by the fact that the FBI had isolated lines that were actually jokes form Comedy Central and various comedians. One could of course forgive an FBI agent for having a limited knowledge of humor sites. However, Kimball also misidentified a quote as having been made by the al Qaida-affiliated cleric Anwar al-Awlaki when it was really a quote from the Qu’ran.
Among the other examples was the highly incriminating use of the term “mad cooked” in tweets that was raised by Kimball. Kimball admitted on cross examination that he was entirely ignorant of the fact that this slang means “high” after he tried to guess that it might mean “Crazy.”
In the end, it was the testimony that seemed cooked. It was a great cross examination by Conrad, but it is unfortunately not unique.
The exaggeration of such evidence reflects the real issue at trial — death. The defense has already admitted that Tsarnaev carried out the attack. The issue is only the penalty and whether a single juror can be convinced that Tsarnaev was under the influence of his older, more radical brother. The misrepresentation of this evidence was intended to portray Tsarnaev as a dedicated terrorist and extremist like his brother. Instead, it seriously undermined the credibility of the prosecution before the jury in what was an extremely strong case for the death penalty.
Source: Guardian
“Pogo Hears a Who
This shouldn’t be in a court.
It was Islamic jihad, an act of war.”
You may be right, but I believe that our principles and ideals demand that we hold the people responsible for this crime in our criminal justice system. If we give in to fear and anger and act out of vengeance, then how are we any better than what we accuse the terrorist groups of being? Some things are worth dying for, and the principles this country is supposed to stand for cannot be sacrificed for a temporary security (despite the FBI’s legal staff that believes otherwise).
That’s why I am still angry about the “lockdown” in Boston while searching for this guy. It was a despicable act of raw government power and terror inflicted on the public for the appearance of safety.
Thank you for the article. Here is a link to how we (British and U.S., no doubt many others) may have contributed to turning someone radical rather than them running to radical mosques.
http://www.alternet.org/world/did-britains-security-services-drive-jihadi-john-hands-isis-shocking-emails-and-phone
Since I can not edit my previous comment – I wanted to add:
Did not he and his brother both worked for the CIA for decade? Sounds like he is the patsy, just like Timothy McVeigh was.
The fact that he “admitted” to planting the bomb just does not smell right.
We are not being told the whole story by a long shot. My guess is that the FBI either built the bomb as they did in the 1992(?) World Trade Center Bombing or they somehow allowed it to happen.
Dissemble: what a nice sounding word. Sounds so much better than saying he was a lying sack of horseshit. That would be uncivil and given the fact the entire government is riddled with dissemblers, one could hardly blame this poor FBI agent. What example should he follow: Clapper? Wow!
BTW. FBI ineptitude led to the execution of at least on man.
We know there have been on-going problems with the FBI Forensic Lab and their experts. I guess the entire FBI is infected.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/16/233483/investigators-blast-justice-depts.html
This shouldn’t be in a court.
It was Islamic jihad, an act of war.
He should have been executed at the scene.
I agree the FBI is full of chuckleheads.
But we cannot even admit these actions are part of a long ground war.
They use our legal niceties against us.
We are fools; they bomb us, we take them to court and they mock the process.
These are primarily “systemic” issues that top agency leadership are responsible for. James Comey and top leadership are not spending taxpayer dollars to properly to train their subordinates and not providing the right mix of incentives and penalties when subordinates violate their oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
When innocent citizens are harmed or suffer injury to their Bill of Rights, those citizens then sue that agency – which taxpayers ultimately pay for.
Sovereign Immunity is not intented to protect government personnel and their contractors from “unconstitutional” activities, sovereign immunity is only supposed to protect constitutional activities performed in good faith.
Ineptitude and over confidence, or perhaps just ineptitude. A sad state of affairs.
I’ve been critical of law enforcement many times, and this is just another piece of evidence for my belief about the state of policing today: it is insular, arrogant, and a culture full of “because I said so” type people. It pains me to say it, because I badly want law enforcement that will be interested in the pursuit of justice and not just convictions. But that is not the case with many in law enforcement today. And I have no idea how to get back to that ideal.
” Instead, it seriously undermined the credibility of the prosecution before the jury”
The point is that I don’t think the prosecutors will believe that. There is ample evidence of prosecutors and police just shocked that they don’t get complete and instant support from the public (at least those that aren’t anti-cop). Evidence? Because our experts said so. Comply! At least that seems to be the vibe I see often.
Maybe I’m completely wrong. But I don’t know how you have the FBI, supposedly our crown jewel of investigatory power and capability, admitting on the stand they didn’t even look at a picture of Mecca before declaring a photo from there. Or misidentified quotes from popular culture as being from a terrorist organization. That’s professional negligence. But I seriously doubt there will be any action by the FBI to punish the sloppiness. As long as there is a conviction, who cares if the agents got some facts wrong? Would it even matter if the apparent rush to judgement and false assumptions ensnared an innocent person?
I want to support our nation’s law enforcement so badly. But I keep seeing things like this that make me question why they would deserve my respect and support.
It remains to be seen how much of this will be effective upon the jury. Would they view this in light of other evidence or from what those in the legal profession would call a great failure by the witness could be an unknown. Yet certainly it leads to the fact that as articulated by our author that on such a high profile case where there is great evidence to support the government’s case the prosecution should not be so worried of a jury going against them that they commit to a self fulfilling prophecy.
Yes, I fault the FBI agent on the stand, but there is no shortage of blame to go around. The prosecutors handling this case, I assume, are not rookie law school grads. They have dropped the ball here, big time! Where is their preparation with regard to these photos and the meanings of these phrases? Why didn’t the prosecutors make sure that this evidence, being presented against this piece of scum, was nailed down tight? I’m sure that these are well-seasoned prosecutors, with years of experience, who were given the responsibility of handling this high profile case. No excuse for this sloppy preparation on their part. None.
@Ken Rogers- if I had a like button, I’d click it. I’m not dissembling here.
@Iconoclast
“@Ken Rogers- if I had a like button, I’d click it. I’m not dissembling here.”
I’m glad you would have liked to like it. 🙂
The word you meant is “dissembled”, to misrepresent, not disassembled.
@JT
“This week, one such expert, FBI Special Agent Steven Kimball, disassembled on the stand when confronted with clearly (sic) conclusions over basic and easily ascertainable facts.”
It’s always good to see a dissembler disassemble on the stand. 🙂
I wouldn’t believe anything the FBI or any government agency says anymore after being a watch list activist targeted for crimes by their CRIMINAL Covert Operations PERSONNEL.
The People Running the US Government and Homeland Security Agencies are Worse Criminals, Psychopaths, Sociopaths and Pathological Liars than Most of the People in Jails and Prisons. http://www.scribd.com/CrystalSpirit_US
If an adverse attorney can show lies, incompetence laziness in a witness; then EVERYTHING that witness has or does testify to, is suspect. Fraudulent plaintiffs would testify untruthfully, I would play videotape showing the allegedly injured plaintiff lied, and EVERYHTING the plaintiff testified to is tainted. Even the truthful testimony is doubted. That’s the way it works.
Wow, hello? How could an entire team of agents and lawyers not check into this stuff?
Better do a little editing, though, unless you really mean he disassembled. You could say he was disassembled.
Why on earth does the FBI always seem arrogant and inept when they are asked to actually do their jobs. And these guys carry guns. It is appalling.