A sign that the trial will proceed under all the allegations in the Superseding Indictment
We recently reported on important developments in the immigration fraud trial of convicted supermarket bomber and murderer Rasmea Odeh.
Specifically, the prosecutors obtained a Superseding Indictment which expanded the grounds upon which to convict Rasmea of the single charge of falsely obtaining naturalization. The prosecution signaled, in those new allegations, that it would seek a conviction not just because Rasmea falsely denied prior convictions and imprisonment (the prior grounds), but also that she lied on immigration forms about being associated with a terrorist group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
See these posts for background:
- Feds expand immigration fraud indictment of convicted terrorist Rasmea Odeh
- Rasmea Odeh prosecutors: At new trial, we’ll prove Rasmea was a terrorist
- READ: First Superseding Indictment against Rasmea Odeh
In light of the Superseding Indictment, the defense sought a delay of the January 10, 2017, re-trial. The prosecution did not object, and stated in its court papers that as part of the expanded grounds for conviction, the prosecution would seek to take testimony abroad regarding Rasmea’s involvement in the PFLP. If that were to take place, the prosecution would need the delay as well.
A hearing on the trial schedule was held this morning. According to a press release by the Court’s Public Information Officer:
“During a hearing in Detroit this morning, U.S District Judge Gershwin Drain adjourned Rasmieh Odeh’s trial until May 16 at 9 a.m.”
I’m hoping there will reports from people in the courtroom about what took place today, but this seems like a good sign for the prosecution that the case will go forward on all grounds for conviction.
I’ll update if I find out more.
I haven’t seen any reports about what was discussed in Court. There are two docket entries. Here is a short form Order granting the motion to postpone the trial:
Embedded below is the Scheduling Order (pdf. here). It appears to be a standard form with blanks specific to this case filled in. It doesn’t really tell us much, other than that the defense will have a chance for more pre-trial motions; I expect there will be a challenge to the Superseding Indictment, though it’s unclear on what grounds. The Scheduling Order is silent on the prosecution’s desire for overseas testimony; I assume the prosecution will make a separate motion for that, within the time limits in the Scheduling Order for motions.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.