Footnote to the Preceding Dept., "Never!" Is Getting Shorter All the Time Div.

Terrorism Case Thrown Into Turmoil headlines a December 30 Washington Post article.

Detroit - The verdict in the nation's first terrorist trial after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks left both sides claiming victory: two men guilty of terrorism charges and two others cleared of them.

But several recent developments - including revelations that prosecutors may have withheld key exonerating evidence - have thrown the case into turmoil. U.S. District Judge Gerald E. Rosen is considering throwing out the convictions and starting over.

Let's run it down.

- Rosen issued a rare public rebuke of Attorney General John Ashcroft for violating his gag order and exhibiting "a distressing lack of care" in his public statements about the case.

- Federal prosecutors have admitted withholding at least two pieces of evidence that could have helped the defense. One was a letter from a man who shared jail time with a key prosecution witness - a witness who told him, he wrote, "how he lied to the FBI, how he fool'd the Secret Service agent on his case." The other was an FBI interview with a former roommate of the defendants. He called them lazy, said they often drank and smoked and never talked about religion - a far cry from the devout Muslims portrayed by the prosecution.

- The lead prosecutor, Richard Convertino, said in court recently that the information was not relevant. He was scolded by Rosen, who reminded him that was not his decision to make.

- Officials in the U.S. attorney's office in Detroit claim that Convertino and his boss Keith Corbett defied a direct order to turn over the letter to the defense.

- In reply, Covertino's lawyer said Justice Department officials are out to get his client because he testified before Congress about terrorism. Convertino was removed from the case after notifying his bosses of his plans to appear.

So the judge is telling Ashcroft to butt out and scolding the prosecutors, who withheld possibly exculpatory evidence that their superiors ordered them to release, except the lead prosecutor says that's a crock because the information wasn't relevant - which wasn't his decision to make - and besides, those bosses are out to get him.

I think it's safe to say that someone here is abusing their authority. And it ain't the judge or defense counsel.