What I see as a problem for the prosecution is that the relationship between Royer and Cleveland seems to have been much closer than the relationship between Royer and Elgindy. Most of the "information" in question seems to have gone through Cleveland, and it's been shown that he made up some of it. If I were a juror, I think I'd be asking myself why Cleveland was allowed to plea bargain.
I also think that references to the investigation of Elgindy's supposed terrorist ties is a wild card. The jurors will no doubt be instructed by the judge not to take that into their consideration, but it's bound to be at the back of their collective mind. Will they conclude that he was being unfairly persecuted simply because he was born in Egypt, or will they believe that where there's smoke, there's fire, and that he should be punished?
In any case, I think the introduction of the terrorist stuff has set the stage for an appeal. The prosecution could merely have said that Royer told him he was under investigation, but not explained what kind of investigation. And in a sense there were two investigations: as I understand it, they started with terrorism, and when that turned up nothing, moved on to his association with Royer.
And speaking of investigations.... My understanding has always been that if you asked, say, the FBI if you were under investigation, they had to tell you the truth. But perhaps that's changed thanks to the Patriot Act. |
