MAYVILLE, N.Y. — MAYVILLE, N.Y. (AP) —
Jurors picked for the trial of a man who severely injured author Salman Rushdie in a knife attack likely won’t hear about the fatwa that authorities have said motivated him to act, a prosecutor said Friday.
“We’re not going there,” District Attorney Jason Schmidt said during a conference in preparation for the Oct. 15 start of Hadi Matar’s trial in Chautauqua County Court. Schmidt said raising a motive was unnecessary, given that the attack was witnessed and recorded by a live audience who had gathered to hear Rushdie speak.
Potential jurors will nevertheless face questions meant to root out implicit bias because Matar, of Fairview, New Jersey, is the son of Lebanese immigrants and practices Islam, Judge David Foley said. He said it would be foolish to assume potential jurors had not heard about the fatwa through media coverage of the case.
Matar, 26, is charged with attempted murder for stabbing Rushdie, 77, more than a dozen times, blinding him in one eye, as he took the stage at a literary conference at the Chautauqua Institution in August 2022.
A separate federal indictment charges him with terrorism, alleging Matar was attempting to carry out a fatwa, a call for Rushdie’s death, first issued in 1989.
Defense attorney Nathaniel Barone sought assurances that jurors in the state trial would be properly vetted, fearing the current global unrest would influence their feelings toward Matar, who he said faced racism growing up.
“We’re concerned there may be prejudicial feelings in the community,” said Barone, who also has sought a change of venue out of Chautauqua County. The request is pending before an appellate court.
Rushdie spent years in hiding after the Ayatollah Khomeini issued the fatwa over his novel “The Satanic Verses,” which some Muslims consider blasphemous. Rushdie slowly began to reemerge into public life in the late 1990s, and he has traveled freely over the past two decades.
The author, who detailed the attack and his recovery in a memoir, is expected to testify early in Matar’s trial.
In the upcoming trial of the attacker who targeted author Salman Rushdie, jurors may not be fully informed about the motive behind the crime. This decision has sparked debate among legal experts and the public, with some arguing that understanding the motive is crucial for a fair trial, while others believe that it may not be relevant to the case.
Salman Rushdie, a British-Indian author, became the target of an assassination attempt in 1989 after the publication of his novel “The Satanic Verses,” which was deemed blasphemous by some members of the Muslim community. The attacker, who remains unidentified, attempted to kill Rushdie in response to what he perceived as blasphemy against Islam.
The motive behind the attack is a complex and sensitive issue that raises questions about freedom of speech, religious beliefs, and the limits of expression. However, in a court of law, the focus is on determining whether the accused is guilty of committing a crime, rather than delving into the broader societal implications of their actions.
In this case, the prosecution may choose not to present evidence related to the attacker’s motive in order to streamline the trial and prevent it from becoming a platform for political or ideological debates. This decision may also be influenced by concerns about potential bias among jurors if they are exposed to inflammatory or controversial information.
On the other hand, some argue that understanding the attacker’s motive is essential for a fair trial, as it provides important context for the crime and helps jurors make informed decisions about the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Without this information, jurors may struggle to fully grasp the circumstances surrounding the attack and may be more likely to rely on preconceived notions or biases.
Ultimately, the decision to withhold information about the attacker’s motive from jurors raises important questions about the balance between transparency and fairness in the legal system. While it is crucial to ensure that trials are conducted in a fair and impartial manner, it is also important to consider the broader implications of withholding information that could potentially impact the outcome of the case.
As the trial of Salman Rushdie’s attacker unfolds, it will be interesting to see how this issue is addressed and how it may shape future legal proceedings involving cases with complex and controversial motives. In the meantime, the debate over whether jurors should be informed about the motive behind a crime will continue to spark discussion and reflection on the principles of justice and fairness in our legal system.
