Pakistani Canadian Tahawwur Hussain Rana, the co-accused in the Mumbai terror attack case, was arraigned here Wednesday for the trial that is set to begin on May 16.
Clad in an orange jumpsuit, Rana appeared in the Dirksen Federal Courthouse looking around and exchanging pleasantries with his attorneys.
Rana's attorney Patrick Blegen told Judge Leinenweber that he required time to translate about a 1000 pages of Urdu text in preparation for the trial set for May 16.
The next status hearing is set for May 11, after which there will be jury selection.
Opening statements by both the prosecutors and the defense will be done on May 23.
While co-accused David Headley has pled guilty in plotting the carnage, Rana has pled not guilty in providing material support to the
attack.
Rana was indicted by a federal grand jury under 12 counts on Feb 15 last year for planning the carnage, providing material support to
LeT to carry out the bombings, and guiding Headley in scouting targets in Mumbai in the process.
Headley, who was originally Daood Gilani, changed his name in order to carry out the carnage to avoid being caught.
Rana, who had served as a doctor in the Pakistani Army Medical Corps, before he migrated to Canada, is also accused of plotting an
attack with Headley on a Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that published blasphemous cartoons of Prophet Muhammad.
If convicted, Rana faces a possible life sentence.
On April 25, in a second superseding indictment, US prosecutors charged four additional men, all Pakistani residents, in the 26/11 terror attacks that left 166 dead including six Americans.
According to court documents filed on May 2, Rana objected to government's jury instructions and said that the government understates the benefits that Headley has received from the government in this case.
As made clear in Headley's plea agreement, Headley is also avoiding extradition to India, Denmark, or Pakistan for his conduct,
"so long as he fully discloses all material facts concerning his role with respect to (his) offenses and abides by all other aspects of (the
plea agreement)".
Furthermore, Headley received numerous small benefits from the government during his post-arrest interview and proffer sessions
normally not provided to those in custody, including hotel accommodations, specially arranged meals, and visits and phone calls
with his wife and children, the documents state.
Further, according to court documents, Rana also objected to the "Ostrich" instruction -- a jury instruction given when a criminal
defendant claims a lack of guilty knowledge about the crime but there is some evidence the
defendant deliberately elected to remain ignorant to avoid confirmation. Rana claimed there was no evidentiary basis for the Ostrich instruction.
An ostrich instruction where the defendant "acknowledges sticking his head in the sand", is generally given in cases where defendants
deliberately close their eyes to the truth.
Rana also objects to the last para of instruction 32 on the grounds that it is not supported by the government's cited statutes
which requires a defendant conspire to provide material support "knowing or intending that (it is) to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out" a violation of one of the offenses listed in the statute.
According to court documents, Rana objects to this instruction on the grounds that it does not define what is meant by the term "death
resulted".
Rana's attorney submitted that the word "resulted" carries with it a causation element and submits that the following proposed
instruction would be appropriate: "Death resulted" means that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that but for the
"material support or resources" provided by defendant, death would not have occurred.
The government must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that death was a foreseeable and natural consequence of the "material support or resources" provided by defendant.