Announcement that a jury ruled that the confessed al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui should not receive the death penalty for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Discussion Questions

1. What rights in the Bill of Rights applied to the penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui? Why was this trial held in a federal court? Was justice achieved through Moussaoui’s trial?
2. Consider all the people/groups of people involved in the trial. Who holds power/authority? Who ultimately holds the most power?
3. When considering the death penalty for Zacarias Moussaoui, the jury had to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors. What would be an example of each?
4. What is the standard of proof for each? (Why is it different for each?) Why and how must these factors be considered and applied?
5. What do you think the prosecutor's goals were in presenting video evidence of the attacks of 9/11? What were the defense’s goals in having family members on the stand?
6. What precedent does this verdict set for future terrorism cases? After the verdict was read, the presiding judge told the court that “Justice is not necessarily what the outcome is but how it was achieved.” What did she mean?
7. Through the verdict? What did the trial and outcome show about the judicial system?
8. Some people believe the government should not have pursued the death penalty in this case due to the perceived difficulty in winning. Putting your own views on the death penalty aside, do you believe the government should have sought the death penalty? Explain.
9. How does the judicial branch, in this case, serve as a check and balance to the other two branches in the war on terror?