[ QUOTE ]
The key part of the statute and what is seems the jury didn't find him guilty of, was the "in furtherance of" clause. Although I am sure he argued free speech, his promotion of terrorism is the same as verbally inciting any other crime.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, maybe that's what the DA needs to correct if he re-tries. I'm not a lawyer and have only read and watched a few accounts of Sammi. Based on those, I'd vote guilty. But (here it comes), if they couldn't vote guilty on the "in furtherance clause," the way I understand it, they weren't presented with something they could vote guilty on.

Am I getting you as confused as I am me?

Charges were drawn up. Specifics were set forth. And, again, the way I understand it, that's what the prosecution argues in trial. Point by point. What I'm saying is, the DA didn't spell it out in the best way.

btw, I've never been on a jury. I've always shown up and done the waiting thing (for 30 days once, Federal Grand Jury), but the defense just never seemed to cotton up to me or my answers. Go figure.