Lawyers: Feds seek ‘eye for eye’ from NYC bike path killer
new york –
Prosecutors used tearful testimony from victims and their families to persuade jurors to order the death penalty, says a lawyer for a man convicted of killing eight people on a Manhattan bike path. , states that they seek justice “an eye for an eye.”
They asked the judge presiding over the death penalty phase of Saifulo Saipov’s trial to declare the trial erroneous on the matter.
“The evidence on the government’s influence on victims is laden with emotional testimony, inappropriate references and characterizations of Mr. Saipov and his crimes, and the jury’s feelings and emotions towards the victims and their plight. I appeal to sympathy,” the lawyer wrote.
The request came late last week as lawyers prepared to begin presenting evidence to support their claims against the death penalty. If the jury votes against the death penalty, Saipov will serve life in prison.
Late Monday, prosecutors filed a response to the defense’s grievance, which found it nonsensical and that emotional testimony by or about the victim “did not approach, much less, the law.” It’s nothing more than that,” he said.
They added, “The contested testimony did not provide an opinion or characterization of the crime, did not comment on the appropriate sentencing, and did not in any way render the trial fundamentally unfair. he added.
Saipov, 35, was convicted last month of killing eight people and seriously injuring about 18 by driving a rented truck down a bike path along the West Side Highway in lower Manhattan on October 31, 2017. I received Arrested at the scene, he said he supported the Islamic State group.
The same jurors who heard tearful testimony from many of the victims and families of the dead before convicting Saipov said last week that many others had wondered how the terrorist attacks had permanently changed their lives. Some witnesses testified twice.
No testimony took place on Friday, when defense attorneys made their dubious demands, describing the previous day’s emotional testimony as “the most compelling and provocative ever.”
They also presumably used court stenographers only to ensure that transcripts were accurate and preserved so that appeals court panels could hear the extent of the emotional testimony. We made the unusual request to ask the judge to order the recording of the proceedings.
In the filing, defense attorneys cited some of Thursday’s testimony, including that of Alexander Naissance, the Belgian witness to the murder of his wife Anne-Laure Decat.
He said that his children “will never have a mother, they will never have the most important person in their lives.
“And as for me, my life is a mess,” said Naissance.
Defense attorneys said the testimony “beyond a mere account of pain and loss, and that Mr. Saipov had ended Ms. Decat’s life and ‘ruined’ the lives of her husband and children,” said the jury. urged him to end his life,” he wrote.
The defense attorney also accused the prosecutor of following Nesen’s testimony and playing recordings of a jail cell phone call between Saipov and his children, describing it as an apparent attempt to invite a jury. . “
“This is nothing more than an ‘eye for an eye’ appeal for justice, prompting jurors to ignore or ignore mitigation, otherwise it is incompatible with the jury’s mandate. Is Saipov worthy of trial? It is a sober weighing of the evidence at stake to decide whether the ultimate punishment,” they added.
Defense attorneys also said a miscarriage of justice may be necessary due to emotional testimony by Ann-Laure Decadt’s mother, Lieve Wyseur.
“Crying and sobbing throughout most of her testimony, but sometimes in visible bouts of anger, Ms. Wisour’s presentation was the quintessential appeal to passion and emotion,” they wrote.
“Of course, the defense is not criticizing the grief or pain the witnesses feel over the loss of Ms. Decat,” they added. It’s clearly not the place to express your emotions or, in Wisuru’s case, to vent your (understandable) anger and pain.”
A spokesman for the prosecutor declined to comment.
During the punishment stage of the trial, Judge Vernon S. Broderick repeatedly urged witnesses to request breaks if they appeared to be getting too emotional, concluding that they could be unfairly disadvantaged. has ruled that some audio or video recordings are not permitted.
During the presentation of the defense case, members of Saipov’s family were expected to be in court, which was often full of victims and families of the dead.
New York does not have the death penalty and no one has been executed since 1963, but Saipov’s trial is in federal court and a death sentence is still possible. The last time a person was executed for a federal crime in New York was in 1954.