1 

United States v. Abdel Rahman: 

Preliminary Voir Dire 

Hon. Michael B. Mukasey 

Southern District of New York 

January 9, 1995 

The following text was prepared by the Southern District of New York’s United 

States District Judge Michael B. Mukasey to address prospective jurors selected 

for the prosecution of defendants suspected of seditious conspiracy to conduct a 

campaign of urban terrorism, including participation in the 1993 bombing of the 

World Trade Center and plans to bomb New York landmarks, in United States v. 

Abdel Rahman, No. 1:93-cr-181 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 1993). 

Preliminary Voir Dire 

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am Judge Mukasey, and we are here this 

morning to pick a jury in a criminal case. Our purpose today and in the coming 

days is to pick a jury of citizens who can listen to the evidence in this case and 

decide the case based only on the evidence presented here in court and on my 

instructions as to the law. 

The case is one that many of you—perhaps all of you—have heard about or 

read about. The defendants in this case are charged with participating in a conspiracy, which is simply the legal term for an unlawful agreement, to commit 

various acts of violence, including bombing buildings and other structures, as a 

way of opposing the United States and United States policy in the Middle East, 

and with committing other acts that are said to be related to that conspiracy. 

We are not trying to find people for this jury who have never heard of this 

case or of these charges. We are not even trying to find jurors who have never 

held or expressed an opinion about these charges or about matters related to 

them. We are trying to find jurors who, regardless of what they have seen or 

heard, and even regardless of what they have thought or said, can understand that 

their job as jurors is to decide this case based only on the evidence presented here 

in court, to apply only the legal rules that I explain and no others, and by applying those rules to that evidence to determine whether or not each defendant’s 

guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 

We are going to use the following procedure for jury selection: After I finish 

these preliminary remarks, which should take about 20 minutes, each of you will 

be given a questionnaire that contains certain questions for you to answer that 

will help us—the lawyers for the parties and me—to decide whether you can 

serve on this jury. As I will explain in more detail later on, after you finish filling 

out the questionnaire today you will submit it and go home, and then return on 

Wednesday, January 18, at which time some of you will be asked additional 

questions in person. We will use this process to get a panel of about 80 jurors. In 

addition to coming back on January 18, you may be asked to come back once or 

twice more during this selection process. From among this panel of 80 or so, the 

parties will select the 12 jurors and six alternate jurors who will hear and decide 
United States v. Abdel Rahman: Preliminary Voir Dire 

2 

the case. I hope, if everything goes smoothly, that we can get started with the trial 

itself not later than Monday, January 30. Of course, if we can start earlier, we 

will. 

The questions in the questionnaire, and those we will ask in person in a few 

days, ask certain facts about you and members of your family: whether you and 

any family members or close friends have any connection with the people or 

events underlying this case; whether you have opinions on certain subjects; and 

other matters, including how you are employed. I hope you understand that this is 

not an attempt to pry into your private life but simply a way of helping all of us 

determine who can serve on this jury. 

Before you are given the questionnaire to fill out, there are a few things I 

should explain about the case. The first is the charges, which are contained in an 

indictment voted by a grand jury. An indictment is simply the document that contains the charges that the government is required to prove beyond a reasonable 

doubt. It is the way that the government brings into court people whom the government claims have violated the law. That is the only function of an indictment 

in a criminal case. An indictment itself is not evidence of the guilt of any defendant. An indictment does not change in any way the presumption of innocence 

that the law gives every accused person at the start of a trial, a presumption that 

stays with the defendant throughout the trial unless and until the jury finds, in 

accordance with legal rules described by the court, that each and every element 

of a charge has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The indictment in this case contains 28 separate counts or charges, but those 

charges can be described briefly in three categories. The first category of charges 

includes three conspiracy charges; one charge of attempted bombing; two 

charges of soliciting or asking others to commit violent acts; and four charges of 

receiving, using, or carrying weapons or destructive devices. Those charges are 

contained in Counts One through Six and Counts Fifteen through Eighteen of the 

indictment. All of these counts involve charges that some or all of these defendants participated in conspiracies to commit or attempted acts of violence or 

helped others to do so. 

As I mentioned before, a conspiracy is simply an agreement between two or 

more people to violate the law. The first of these conspiracy charges is that all 

defendants named in the indictment agreed to oppose the United States and its 

policies, including its policies in the Middle East, through a series of violent acts, 

including bombings and murder. These acts are said to have included the bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993 as well as plans to bomb other 

buildings and locations, including FBI headquarters and the Holland and Lincoln 

Tunnels; plans to commit violence against various public figures, including President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt; and plans to try to secure the release of imprisoned members of the group. The indictment charges that these acts were motivated also by opposition to Israel and by a radical interpretation of the Islamic 

religion. The second conspiracy charge is brought against two defendants and 

accuses them of agreeing to help arrange the assassination of Egyptian President 

Hosni Mubarak during a visit he made to the United Nations in the spring of 

1993. The third conspiracy charge is brought against all 12 defendants on trial 

here and accuses them of participating in an unlawful agreement to bomb build-
United States v. Abdel Rahman: Preliminary Voir Dire 

3 

ings and other locations. This conspiracy charge differs from the first because 

among other things it does not mention or require proof that opposing United 

States policy was a motive. Count Six of the indictment contains the charge of 

attempted bombing and is brought against 10 of the defendants on trial here. 

Counts Two and Four contain the charges of soliciting or requesting others to 

commit acts of violence, and both of these counts name one defendant. Counts 

Fifteen and Sixteen charge that two defendants received and used a semiautomatic weapon in connection with the bombing conspiracy charged in Count 

Five. Count Seventeen charges seven defendants with using and carrying destructive devices in connection with the bombing conspiracy charged in Count Five, 

and Count Eighteen charges one defendant with using and carrying destructive 

devices in connection with the conspiracy charged in Count One. That is the first 

group or category of charges. 

The second category of charges includes Counts Seven through Fourteen; 

they are brought only against the defendant El Sayyid Nosair, and they all involve conduct that is said to have occurred on November 5, 1990. Count Seven 

charges that on November 5, 1990, he killed a man named Meir Kahane, and 

Count Eight charges that he attempted to kill a man named Irving Franklin. 

Counts Nine and Ten charge that he attempted to kill a U.S. postal inspector 

named Carlos Acosta. Counts Eleven through Fourteen charge that he used and 

possessed a weapon unlawfully on November 5, 1990. 

Finally, the third category of charges—Counts Nineteen through TwentyEight—contain charges only against defendant Ibrahim El-Gabrowny for conduct 

that allegedly occurred on March 4, 1993. Counts Nineteen through Twenty-Two 

charge him with obstruction of justice and assault for allegedly trying to interfere 

with law enforcement officers who were executing a search warrant at his apartment in connection with the investigation of the World Trade Center bombing. 

Counts Twenty-Three through Twenty-Eight charge Mr. El-Gabrowny with possessing forged Nicaraguan passports at the time of his arrest on March 4, 1993. 

As you can see from the description of the charges, this is a case in which 

people are charged with agreeing to commit criminal acts and with committing 

criminal acts. No one here is charged simply with having opinions or expressing 

ideas, neither of which is a crime in this country. 

Each defendant, by entering a plea of not guilty in this case, has denied these 

charges, and the government has the obligation to prove the charges beyond a 

reasonable doubt. 

I have just summarized these charges in a general way not for the purpose of 

describing what is necessary to prove them; I will do that in detail as part of the 

trial. The only purpose of summarizing the charges at this point is so that you can 

understand the reasons for some of the questions you will be asked to answer on 

the questionnaire and later on during the jury selection process. 

When I referred to Count One, I mentioned that the bombing of the World 

Trade Center in February 1993 is charged as part of the conspiracy set out in 

Count One. You may be aware that four men were convicted in this court last 

spring in connection with the World Trade Center bombing. However, those 

convictions have no relevance to this case. Just because those four men were 

convicted does not mean that any of these defendants were involved in that 
United States v. Abdel Rahman: Preliminary Voir Dire 

4 

bombing. On the other hand, just because those four men were found to have 

been involved in that bombing does not mean that anyone on trial here, or anyone 

else, could not also have been involved. To put the matter simply, although the 

same bombing is charged as part of this case, the verdict in the other case has 

absolutely nothing to do with this case. 

Now that I have summarized the charges, I will introduce each of the defendants and the lawyers and others who will be participating in the trial of this case. 

The government is represented in this case, as it is in all cases in which the government is a party before this court, by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Mary Jo White. This case will be presented by Assistant United States Attorneys Patrick Fitzgerald, Robert Khuzami, and Andrew 

McCarthy. Assisting them will be Jane Chu. 

I will now introduce the defendants and their lawyers. You will notice that 

some may be represented by more than one lawyer, and you should draw no conclusion from that fact. The question of whether one or more lawyers represent a 

defendant is simply a matter of convenience and efficiency and should not concern you. The first defendant named in the indictment is Omar Ahmed Ali Abdel 

Rahman who is known also as Sheik Abdel Rahman. 

Dr. Abdel Rahman will be represented by Lynne Stewart, assisted by Ramsey Clark and Abdeen Jabara, and Emanuel Moore also has provided legal counsel to Dr. Abdel Rahman. The second defendant is El Sayyid Nosair. He will be 

represented by Roger Stavis and Andrew Patel. The third defendant is Ibrahim A. 

El-Gabrowny. Mr. El-Gabrowny will be represented by Anthony Ricco and Gary 

Villanueva. Next is Siddig Ibrahim Siddig Ali. He will be represented by Daniel 

Felber of the firm of Balsam and Felber and by Jerry Tritz. The next defendant 

listed in the indictment is Clement Hampton-El, who is represented by Kenneth 

Wasserman. Next is Amir Abdelgani, who is represented by Steven Bernstein. 

The next person listed is Fares Khallafalla. He is represented by Valerie Amsterdam. The next defendant is Tarig Elhassan. He is represented by Joyce London. 

The next defendant listed in the indictment is Fadil Abdelgani, who I should note 

is not the same person as Amir Abdelgani, whom I introduced a moment ago. 

Mr. Fadil Abdelgani is represented by Charles Lavine of the firm of Grossman, 

Lavine, and Rinaldo. The next defendant is Mohammed Saleh, who is 

represented by John Jacobs. The next defendant is Victor Alvarez, who is 

represented by Wesley Serra. And the last defendant listed in the indictment is 

Matarawy Mohammed Said Saleh, who is also called Wahid Saleh and is not the 

same person as Mohammed Saleh, whom I introduced a moment ago. This Mr. 

Saleh—Matarawy Saleh or Wahid Saleh—is represented by Thomas Nooter of 

the firm of Freeman, Nooter, and Ginsberg. 

Obviously, when you hear a lot of names and see a lot of faces it is difficult 

at first to keep everyone straight, particularly when some people have similar 

names. But I can assure you that as the trial progresses you will have no difficulty keeping everyone’s identity straight, and there are name cards on the table in 

front of each person identifying that person. 

Now that I have introduced the parties and their lawyers, I should tell you a 

couple of additional facts about the case that may help you fill out the questionnaire and help you understand how the privacy of jurors can and will be pre-
United States v. Abdel Rahman: Preliminary Voir Dire 

5 

served in a case like this in which there has been a good deal of public interest. 

Some of you may have heard or read about jurors being sequestered. The jury in 

this case will not be sequestered. The jurors will go home every night. However, 

the names and addresses and other identifying information about jurors, such as 

their places of employment, will not be disclosed to anyone other than the jury 

clerk who will send each juror his or her check for jury service. That is to ensure 

that the privacy of jurors is preserved and that you are not contacted by the press 

or by others who may be curious to discuss the case. In addition, jurors will be 

picked up each morning by deputy U.S. Marshals at a convenient meeting place, 

or perhaps at several different places, and driven to the courthouse. While the 

jury is in the courthouse, its members will remain with the marshals and will take 

their coffee breaks and meals together. A light breakfast—coffee and other refreshments—and lunch will be provided by the court during the day for the jurors. In the evening, the jurors will be driven from the courthouse by the marshals 

back to a convenient drop-off point, or perhaps several drop-off points, and will 

make their way home. The jury will hear evidence in the case four days a week—

Monday through Thursday—at least initially. I hope it will not be necessary for 

us to go to a five-day-a-week schedule, but I cannot promise that. 

Perhaps I should say a few words about the security procedures in this case. 

When you came to the courthouse this morning you may have noticed that there 

are marshals and other security people posted inside and outside. The security 

people are here simply to ensure that whatever people’s opinions or feelings may 

be about this case, they will not cause disruption of the trial, and that the jury can 

proceed in an orderly way to hear the evidence and decide the case based only on 

the evidence and on my instructions as to the law. 

I am sure you are wondering how long the trial will take. Actually, I am 

wondering the same thing. It is not possible to predict with great accuracy how 

long it will take, but the best estimate I can make—and it is only an estimate—is 

that it will take between six and nine months. I know that is a very long time, and 

there may be many of you who simply cannot take that amount of time to hear a 

case, even four days a week. I will discuss that later. But please understand that 

the lawyers and the court will do everything we can to present the case as quickly 

as possible, consistent with giving everyone here—both the defendants and the 

government—a fair trial. I should also tell you that after 30 days of trial, the jury 

fee you receive goes from $40 per day to $50 per day, so there is some slight additional compensation in a longer trial such as this. In addition, jurors will be 

paid for the cost of public transportation to and from whatever pick-up and dropoff point the marshals use. 

You should also know that no one who is employed need be concerned about 

how their employer might react to their service on a jury during a lengthy trial. 

Most employers, I think, are pretty good and understanding about that, but in any 

event there is a federal statute that forbids any discrimination of any kind against 

anyone on account of jury service. I have made sure in the past that that statute 

was scrupulously observed by the employers of jurors who have served in this 

court, and you have my word that I will do so in this case. So you will not lose 

seniority or any other employment right as a result of your jury service. Although 

that statute does not require that an employer pay a person his or her salary dur-
United States v. Abdel Rahman: Preliminary Voir Dire 

6 

ing jury service, it does require that any employer who has a policy of paying 

employees during jury service continue to apply that policy. 

During the trial, those who serve on the jury will have to agree not to read 

any of the newspaper or magazine reports about the case or watch or listen to any 

radio or television news report about the case. I may discuss the reasons for that 

in greater detail later during or after jury selection, but you can probably figure 

out the reasons for that yourselves. Those who are selected to serve on the jury 

will take an oath to decide the case based only on the evidence presented in court. 

There are two parts to that. First, it is the jurors who must decide the case for 

themselves; and second, they must do so based only on evidence received in 

court. If jurors read and are influenced by news reports about the case, in effect 

they are surrendering their responsibility to news reporters or to people whose 

comments the reporters quote in the newspapers or on radio or television. Reporters frequently highlight what is interesting and easy to understand. As you 

probably realize, not everything that is interesting and easy is necessarily important, and not everything that is important is necessarily interesting or easy. Even 

when reporters try in good faith to get facts correct, they are often working in a 

hurry with partial information, and they do not have an unlimited amount of 

space or time to explain the facts. To put it simply, even when media representatives try their best, they may not get it right or complete. 

Also, people may be quoted in news reports who have an interest in having 

the case come out one way or the other, and those people will say things they 

hope will influence public opinion one way or the other. There have already been 

several people quoted in news reports about this case who fit that description, 

some of them currently involved in this case, some not. People with an interest in 

having the case come out one way or the other naturally will say what they think 

helps the side they want to help, and they will avoid discussing anything they 

think does not help their side. There have already been many statements like that 

reported about this case in the newspapers, on television, and elsewhere. Needless to say, such statements are not evidence, and many such statements have included outright falsehoods about what the evidence will show. If a juror is influenced by statements in press reports, which are not evidence and which the parties to this case do not have a chance to rebut or explain, then that juror is not 

being true to his or her oath to decide the case for himself or herself and to decide 

it based on the evidence and not based on news reports. That is just a summary of 

the reasons why we do not want jurors being influenced by news reports, and the 

easiest way not to be influenced by news reports is not to see or hear them. Start 

today. 

I will also ask you today and on future days not to talk to anyone about this 

case, particularly not to reporters if they try to question you about it. Obviously, I 

am also asking the reporters not to try to question jurors or potential jurors because that could simply disqualify those jurors from service and would be interfering with the process of selecting a jury in this case. 

But although you will not be able to read about this case or hear about it from 

news reports, you should know that we will make available to the jurors at the 

courthouse the local daily newspapers with the stories about this case deleted, so 

you will be able to keep up with sports—at least those sports that are still being 
United States v. Abdel Rahman: Preliminary Voir Dire 

7 

played—and with other important things like the comics. Unfortunately, none of 

us will be able to keep up with the Far Side cartoons because Gary Larson has 

decided to retire and stop drawing them, but we will be able to keep up with everything else. 

I am almost done with these preliminary remarks, and I thank you for your 

attention. A moment ago, when I mentioned the projected length of the trial, 

some of you looked and even sounded uncomfortable. Others may feel that they 

would have difficulty serving because of the nature of the charges. I want to assure you that no one is going to be forced to serve on this jury who should not sit 

because he or she really cannot decide the case based only on the evidence but 

rather would be influenced by other considerations, or who cannot sit because 

that person simply cannot afford the time away from business or other pressing 

matters. That is part of what we will be trying to find out through the questionnaire. But I hope when you answer the questions on that questionnaire you will 

keep the following in mind: If you, or someone close to you, were accused of a 

crime, or were the victim of a crime, or were simply involved in an accident or 

some other event that caused a lawsuit, you would expect a group of your fellow 

citizens to put aside their beliefs and prejudices, and their other activities, for 

whatever time it took to hear your case; and you would have every reason to expect that because it is your right in this country to expect it. The people involved 

in this case have a right to expect that as well. Also, each of you took an oath 

before we started that you would give truthful answers to all questions put to you 

touching upon your qualifications to serve as jurors. Everything that happens in 

this building depends on people taking oaths seriously. No witness is allowed to 

testify until the witness takes an oath. Each of these lawyers took an oath before 

that lawyer was permitted to practice in this court. I had to take an oath before I 

assumed my responsibilities here. Your oath is no less important than the oaths of 

others who participate in this trial, and it applies to the questions on the questionnaire. 

Just a few more words about the questionnaire and then I am finished. The 

form is about 20 pages long. Most of the questions are “Yes/No” questions, so 

you will not have to sit and write any long answers. There are two sets of questions on the questionnaire—questions 20(a) and (b) and questions 76 through 

80—that I should mention in particular. Questions 20(a) and (b) ask about the 

ethnic background of you and your spouse, and questions 76 through 80 ask 

about your religious background. Those questions are optional. You need not 

answer them if you would prefer not to do so. Whether you answer them or not, 

please understand that we do not pick juries in this country, and we will not pick 

this jury, based on ethnic background or religion. The only reason those questions are there is that a person’s background, whether ethnic or religious, might 

possibly help someone reading the questionnaire better understand the answers to 

other questions. But again, you need not answer such questions if you would prefer not to do so, and the questionnaire says just that before each of those questions. 

Finally, as I mentioned, no one but the jury clerk will know the identity of 

the jurors. Each of you has been given a juror number. That number should go on 

the form in the designated space. Please do not put your name anywhere on the 
United States v. Abdel Rahman: Preliminary Voir Dire 

8 

form. The only person who has a list of the names corresponding to the numbers 

you have is the jury clerk who will issue the checks to the jurors for their jury 

service, so the lawyers and others who get copies of the questionnaire to review 

will not know the name or other identifying information about jurors. 

After you have finished filling out the questionnaire, you may give it to the 

clerk, who will make sure that it is complete and that your number appears in the 

proper place. You may then go home. We will ask you to return on _______ at 

1:00 p.m. to Courtroom 110, where you are about to go to fill out your questionnaires and which is just across the hall from the jury assembly room, and you will 

be told then whether you will be asked any further questions as part of the remainder of the jury selection process. Those who are to be questioned further will 

meet with me and the lawyers and the defendants in a conference room, one by 

one, and we will have whatever further discussion we need to have. After that, 

we will pick about 45 jurors at random, and they may be asked some additional 

questions in open court. From this group, we will select the 18 jurors who will 

hear and decide this case. 

I will now ask each of you to go with the marshals to the room where you 

will fill out your questionnaire. When you are done, just signal to one of the 

clerks that you have finished the form, and one of them will come by and review 

the form to make sure it is complete. You are then free to leave. 

Once again, thank you for your attention. Have a pleasant day and a safe trip 

home.