Yet, during nearly three months of testimony in the bombings trial, prosecutors never called Mr. Mohamed to the stand to repeat his allegations about Mr. bin Laden's role, nor did they offer the jury any other direct evidence that so decisively tied Mr. bin Laden to either attack. Now, with the jury poised to begin deliberations this week, there is a struggle going on as lawyers for the two defendants who could face the death penalty are trying to pull Mr. Mohamed and his secret deal with the government into the open. One set of defense lawyers, for Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, who is not related to Ali Mohamed, asked the judge on Wednesday for details of every plea agreement the government has made in the terrorism investigation. They hope to show that leaders of the conspiracy got deals and will not even stand trial, while their client, a low-level participant, could be put to death if convicted. The prosecution, however, has refused to provide the broad information they are seeking, and the matter is before Judge Leonard B. Sand.
Judges traditionally grant prosecutors and defense lawyers greater latitude at sentencing hearings.
Defense lawyers in the terrorism case could be expected to make passionate appeals that go beyond the evidence and delve into their client's background and character and the relative culpability of others. Prosecutors say he helped grind the TNT and rode in the bomb truck during part of the trip to the embassy. His lawyers have largely not contested the evidence of his guilt, and have portrayed him at the trial as an impressionable young man used by others, who confessed immediately upon his arrest and tried to assist the investigation. Ali Mohamed, meanwhile, has been described by prosecutors as a high-level logistics adviser to Mr. bin Laden. He also admitted in court last October that he had visited the Nairobi embassy a few years before the attacks and scouted it out as a potential bomb target.