Search
Close this search box.

Legal Aid Society Pulls Out Of NYC Terror Case, Citing Conflict


Citing a conflict, the Legal Aid Society is asking a judge to find someone else to represent the Harlem man accused of conspiring to bomb government workers and military personnel returning from deployments abroad.

After Jose Pimentel was arrested over the weekend, the Legal Aid Society was assigned to his defense. But according to an official with knowledge of the situation, the group is already representing a confidential informant involved in the case.

Pimentel, 27 years old, was arrested Saturday at his home in Harlem and charged with conspiring to commit terrorism and weapons charges in connection with what authorities allege was a plan to build pipe bombs. The NYPD had been monitoring Pimentel, who ran a website critical of the American government, since May 2009. In August, a confidential informant began providing information to the police about his actions and plans, officials have said.

Legal Aid Society attorney Joseph Zablocki represented Pimentel at his arraignment in Manhattan Supreme Court on Sunday. After a judge ordered Pimentel held without bail, Zablocki intimated that the government was overreaching with its terrorism conspiracy theory.

Officials at Legal Aid, a private nonprofit established to provide pro bono legal services, found out late Monday that one of their lawyers was already representing the NYPD’s confidential informant in an unrelated criminal case, the official said.

The judge in Pimentel’s case will have to appoint a new attorney for his defense; his next court date has not yet been set.

The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets have reported that the FBI, the law enforcement agency in this country with jurisdiction over terrorism investigations, declined to join the investigation when approached last year by the NYPD because of what one official said appeared to be “holes” in the case.

(Source: WSJ)



2 Responses

  1. Holes in the case?

    Individuals such as this are caught with bomb-making materials, and that doesnt point to a serious need for investigations into potential terrorism threats?

  2. This isn’t a big deal. All lawyers in a given firm (or agency) are assumed to be sharing information with everyone else in the firm. So if they are already representing one side in the case (the informant), they can’t represent anyone else he is potential engaged in hostile litigation with. It’s just a rule to try to insure that lawyers are loyal to their client, and says nothing as to the merits of the matter (such as guilt or innocence).

Leave a Reply


Popular Posts