ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) – Without advising terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui of his right to remain silent, federal marshals had jailhouse conversations with the defendant last year about terrorism, airline security and bomb-making, a court document says.

The statements should be barred from Moussaoui’s trial because his constitutional rights were violated, court-appointed defense lawyers argued in a written filing released Thursday.

Prosecutors said they wouldn’t use the statements in presenting their evidence, but could be introduced to rebut testimony or in a penalty proceeding.

The conversations were revealed nearly a year after they occurred, because U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema released a number of documents that were previously kept secret. Many of the documents were heavily edited to remove classified material, but not the defense filing that revealed the jailhouse conversations.

The conversations took place in August and September last year when the government inadvertently gave Moussaoui classified documents – and had to retrieve them from his cell.

The government is obligated to provide a defendant with certain material prior to trial, but Moussaoui is not permitted to receive classified information.

“The government should not be permitted to profit from its own negligence,” Moussaoui’s court-appointed lawyers argued in a motion on Sept. 30, seeking to suppress use of the statements.

The defense document disclosed the topics discussed in one conversation but provided no details of what was said. There was no information about the second conversation with marshals.

The government’s mistaken delivery of the classified material was revealed last year in court papers, but the jailhouse conversations were not disclosed at the time.

The defense lawyers argued the deputy marshals took advantage of Moussaoui, who is held in isolation at the Alexandria Detention Center.

“Mr. Moussaoui has an unpredictable personality,” the lawyers said. “He is apt to say almost anything.

“Further, given his well-known dislike for the United States, whatever he says … is likely to be full of anger and therefore harmful to his own interests.

“Thus there is no such thing as an innocuous or casual conversation with Mr. Moussaoui and the (deputy marshals) did know or should have known this.”

The conversations may never be introduced if Moussaoui goes to trial in the only U.S. case to result directly from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Moussaoui is charged as a conspirator with the Sept. 11 hijackers, accused of helping Osama bin Laden wage a war on terrorism against the United States. The French citizen has denied he was to participate in the Sept. 11 attacks but has admitted his loyalty to bin Laden and his al-Qaida organization. The government has said it would seek the death penalty.

The first conversation, on Aug. 27, 2002, started when marshals, during the search of the cell, asked Moussaoui how he got along with several jail deputies.

Moussaoui soon began to discuss “various topics, including the reasons for terrorism in the United States, airline security and bomb-making,” the defense lawyers revealed, citing the marshals’ report of the incident.

When the marshals asked Moussaoui to clarify what he meant, on several occasions he did so, the court filing said, without describing the specific conversation.

Moussaoui’s court-appointed defense team represents the defendant’s legal interests while he serves as his own attorney. The lawyers argued that any use of the statements should be barred because Moussaoui was not advised of his right to remain silent.

Defense team sources, who asked not to be identified by name, said Brinkema has decided there’s no continuing controversy because of the government’s agreement not to initiate use of the statements while presenting its evidence.

Copy the Story Link