Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- jurors in the trial of the suspect did so well unsuccessful underwear bomber due in court this week.
Omar Farouk Abdul what -- is accused of trying to blow up a plane filled with some 300 people bound for Detroit on Christmas Day back in 09.
We're told the 24 year old man from Nigeria.
Will act as his own attorney.
Now prosecutors say they want to show this video that they have.
Of what could -- happen should the explosive chemical -- hidden in his underpants.
Had bitten or should -- have detonated.
With -- on the case with the Fox News senior judicial analyst -- -- -- kind of he's on the five -- weekdays at 5 eastern time and the anchor of freedom watch on the Fox Business Network -- so videos of something that might of.
Happen you know this is the latest craze amongst to prosecutors and some judges are accepting it summaries are rejecting in which the government will actually make a movie.
Of the events which didn't happen -- as to which there is no witness based upon other information so the government will bring in an expert.
Who will say I'm familiar with these chemicals that He had and if the chemicals had done what He intended them to do.
Here's -- -- happened to the plane and instead of me explaining what what happened your honor I brought a video that I created on my computer and I'll show the jury what would happen question.
Is that highly prejudicial to the jurors because there never was an explanation or.
Should the government be able to demonstrate to the jurors what this person planned and intended to do.
That's the question that the court -- enhance.
There'll be a lot more evidence in this trial and it looks like -- I mean they have a lot of it that they have they have his underwear with a bomb stuff and it.
Here is you put your finger -- on it there is so much evidence of his guilt they do not need to risky reversal.
By persuading a judge should injured introduced something and let the jury see this fantasy.
Of an event that never occurred haven't get convicted -- have an appeals court reversed the conviction.
You know you look at this picture of the guy who would -- on.
What was right was right there in the war -- -- I mean.
You're a prosecutor you might have a hard time.
With the jury and a little baby faced kid I'm not not to diminish anything -- try to do whatever I'm just you know look at what the evidence of his guilt is substantial and unfortunately for him and for the judge.
He has decided to defend himself the reason I see unfortunately for the judges I can tell you from my own experience it's a nightmare for a judge when a criminal defendant wants to represent himself and -- the judge have to level the playing field.
Without interfering with the government's case what one thing it was interesting they're they're putting together measures to protect the identity of the jurors in this case.
Well there is the fear that the jurors may be concerned.
With public knowledge of who they are that's a constitutional issue.
Because the defendant is entitled to know who the jurors are and what their background is since he's representing himself.
Unless He listens to those public defenders that are going to be whispering in his -- He doesn't know that He doesn't know what he's permitted to learn about the jurors.
And the and the prosecutors may just steam roll right over him a judge cannot let that happen does the judge appoint a public defender all the same isn't as the guys -- so yes now she has appointed several public defender to him He has fired all -- what you will do against his will is to have one seated there.
To whisper into easier to explain things for him.
But He may decide not to listen to the -- And then then -- that this matter of of trying to prosecute terror suspects.
It's proved to be difficult.
This particular judge has ruled that this particular defendant.
Is entitled to all the protections of the constitution no matter where it was born.
And no matter what the government says He He has done this is a profound victory whatever the outcome of this case for the rule of law.
That this guy is going to be tried in a federal district court.
With a full panoply of constitutional protections there -- lot of politicians and officeholders in both parties.
Political parties who don't want to see this happen.
But -- that is that for political reasons it is this is a new argument this.
Forget the constitution businesses and that is that -- -- it it is.
Well it goes back to World War II with the German -- two worse who landed and Long Island and and Key Largo or -- -- the island -- -- A -- the coast of Florida.
And and the Supreme Court sort of accepted it and sort of rejected it but it's coming back.
And it's coming back with force if the outcome of this case is fair and just it will show yet again.
That justice can be meted out and the constitution be followed at the same time -- -- in -- hopeful I'm hopeful.
Just the volatile -- back at speculation -- Monday -- pleasure we'll watch for you at 8 o'clock tonight on the Fox Business Network just up the dial.
A freedom watch hosted by the judge -- --
Filter by section