Appeal is filed in Fort Dix terrorist case

Against what most courtroom observers consider a legal long shot, lawyers for the Fort Dix Five filed a multipronged appeal Tuesday seeking to have the convictions of the jailed suburban terrorists overturned.

The 149-page legal brief, citing many of the same arguments that were rejected by the trial judge in the case, was submitted as nearly two dozen family members and supporters of the defendants staged a noontime rally outside the federal courthouse at Sixth and Market Streets, where the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is based.

The prosecution has 21 days to respond to the appeal motion but will likely be granted an extension.

The Third Circuit could ask for oral arguments once the government has filed its response. But those probably would not be heard until next year.

Contacted at his South Jersey office Tuesday, Richard Sparaco, the lawyer for defendant Serdar Tatar, said members of the defense team would not comment beyond what was said in the filing.

Tatar, 27, is serving a 33-year sentence.

His codefendants, Mohamad Shnewer, 25; and brothers Dritan Duka, 31; Shain, 29; and Eljvir, 27, are each serving life terms.

All five were found guilty of conspiring to attack U.S. military personnel in what authorities alleged was an attempt to launch a jihad in South Jersey.

Steven Downs, an attorney for Project SALAM, a Muslim legal advocacy organization, said the appeal process would be difficult for the Fort Dix defendants.

The Albany, N.Y.-based lawyer said it was his belief that appellate court decisions have been based on "government policy" rather than the law in cases involving allegations of terrorism.

In a short speech at the rally, Downs was more pointed: "This case is garbage and should be thrown out."

Standing before posters and banners, supporters contended that the Fort Dix defendants were victims of "preemptive prosecution" and entrapment.

The legal brief filed Tuesday lacked the emotionalism of the rally but covered a broad range of issues, including the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prosecutorial and trial court error, and denial of the defendants' right to a fair trial.

U.S. District Judge Robert B. Kugler, who presided at the 12-week trial in federal court in Camden, found no validity in those arguments when the defense raised them after the convictions.