MAYVILLE, N.Y. — The New Jersey man accused of repeatedly stabbing author Salman Rushdie is not interested in an offered plea deal that would shorten his time in state prison but expose him to federal prison on a separate terrorism-related charge, his lawyer said Tuesday.
Hadi Matar sat silently in Chautauqua County Court as lawyers outlined a proposal they said was worked out between state and federal prosecutors and agreed to by Rushdie over the past several months.
The agreement would have Matar plead guilty in Chautauqua County to attempted murder in exchange for a maximum state prison sentence of 20 years, down from 25 years. He would then also plead guilty to a yet-to-be-filed federal charge of attempting to provide material support to a designated terrorist organization, which could result in an additional 20 years, attorneys said.
Matar, 26, has been held without bail since his 2022 arrest immediately after prosecutors say he attacked the acclaimed writer as he was about to address an audience at the Chautauqua Institution in western New York. Rushdie was blinded in one eye. Moderator Henry Reese also was wounded.
Matar has pleaded not guilty.
Chautauqua County District Attorney Jason Schmidt said Rushdie favors the “global resolution” proposed in the case, which otherwise could mean two separate trials.
“His preference was to see this matter come to an end,” said Schmidt, who initially opposed reducing the maximum state prison term.
Matar’s attorney, Nathaniel Barone, said Matar wants to take his chances at trial.
“He’s saying, `What have I got to lose?,” Barone said after the hearing.
Judge David Foley instructed Matar to discuss the offer with Barone and to provide an answer at his next appearance, July 2.
A recent development in the case of the man accused of attacking author Salman Rushdie has taken an unexpected turn. The client of the lawyer representing the accused has declined a plea deal offer, opting instead to proceed to trial.
The accused, whose name has not been disclosed to the public, was charged with assault after allegedly attacking Rushdie at a book signing event. Rushdie, known for his controversial and provocative writings, has been the target of threats and attacks in the past due to his work.
The plea deal offered to the accused included a reduced sentence in exchange for pleading guilty to the charges. However, the client’s decision to decline the offer indicates a willingness to fight the charges in court.
The lawyer representing the accused has stated that they believe their client is innocent and will vigorously defend them in court. They have also expressed confidence in their ability to secure a favorable outcome for their client.
The decision to decline the plea deal offer highlights the client’s determination to clear their name and prove their innocence. It also raises questions about the strength of the prosecution’s case and the evidence against the accused.
As the case moves forward to trial, all eyes will be on the courtroom as both sides present their arguments and evidence. The outcome of the trial will have far-reaching implications for both the accused and Salman Rushdie, as well as for the broader issues of freedom of speech and the right to express controversial opinions without fear of violence.
In the meantime, the lawyer representing the accused continues to prepare their defense and work tirelessly to ensure that their client receives a fair trial. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities and challenges of the legal system, and the importance of due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
