Uncategorized
She represents the ‘worst of the worst.’ Now Judy Clarke is leading the defense in Pittsburgh synagogue massacre trial.
PITTSBURGH (Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle via JTA) — When Judy Clarke delivered her opening statement to the jury that will determine the fate of the man charged with committing the massacre in the Tree of Life synagogue building, she did not deny that her client was responsible.
In fact, she sympathized with the victims and their families.
Clarke, 71, began her address by acknowledging the horror of Oct. 27, 2018, and its aftermath.
“The tragedy that brings us together today,” she said in a soft-spoken yet confident voice, is “almost incomprehensible. It’s inexcusable. … Eleven lives were taken, others shattered. The loss that occurred is immeasurable.”
She told the jury there was “no disagreement, no doubt” about the identity of the perpetrator. It was “the man seated at that table,” she said, indicating her client. “He shot every person he saw and, in the process, injured others in their sacred spaces.”
Clarke was appointed to Robert Bowers’ defense team in December 2018, after he requested the counsel of a federal public defender specializing in death penalty cases. He faces 63 criminal counts related to his attack on congregations Dor Hadash, New Light and Tree of Life*Or L’Simcha. Many of the charges carry the death penalty.
Support JTA’s partnership with the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle throughout this trial.
As the trial proceeds, Clarke won’t try to convince the jury her client isn’t guilty. A “win” for her defense team will be for the defendant to avoid a death sentence and instead have him remain in prison for the rest of his life.
Clarke has vast experience defending those whom some call “the worst of the worst.” Her roster of past clients includes Susan Smith, who murdered her two young sons by drowning them in a lake in South Carolina; Theodore Kaczynski, otherwise known as the Unabomber; Buford Furrow, a white supremacist who opened fire in a Jewish community center outside of Los Angeles in 1999; Eric Rudolph, who planted a bomb in Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics; and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a perpetrator of the Boston Marathon bombing.
Except for Tsarnaev — whose case is under appeal — Clarke succeeded in avoiding a death sentence for all her clients, either by negotiating a plea deal or by convincing the jury that mitigating factors, such as a mental illness, precluded imposition of the ultimate punishment.
Clarke’s team tried to negotiate a deal for a life sentence for Bowers in exchange for a guilty plea but was unsuccessful. Four and a half years after the deadliest antisemitic attack in U.S. history, the three-week jury selection process commenced on April 24 and testimony began on May 30.
“This is not a straightforward murder case,” Clarke told the jury in her opening statement. The federal charges — which include obstruction of free exercise of religious beliefs resulting in death — must be proved by showing the defendant had the requisite intent to commit those particular crimes, she said.
She acknowledged that her client’s actions on Oct. 27, 2018, were “reprehensible” and “misguided” and recounted his virulent social media postings and other rantings about Jews. But she also portrayed him as “quiet” and “socially awkward, a man with few friends.” He didn’t live on his own until he was 44, she said, and his family saw him as someone “more likely to commit suicide than kill others.”
It’s clear that Clarke is appalled by her client’s actions. It’s also clear that she is determined to see that his rights are protected and that the judge and the jury faithfully apply the rule of law.
“Judy is one of the best lawyers I’ve ever known,” said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angles and a former federal prosecutor. “She works insanely hard. She spends the time with the clients that she needs to. She doesn’t believe in the death penalty, and she’s devoted herself to representing people who are, you know — ‘the Voyage of the Damned’ is what she would say.”
Levenson, who has known Clarke for three decades, described her as “honest” and “very humble.”
“She doesn’t stand against the victims,” Levenson stressed. “I think she actually feels very much for the tragedy that occurred. But she has a job to do, which is to try to save her client’s life. And she does it with integrity.”
The two met during the Unabomber case, when Clarke was representing Kaczynski and Levenson was a legal commentator for CBS. Kaczynski at first resisted a plea deal sentencing him to life in prison because he did not want to admit to mental health issues.
Defense attorney Judy Clarke, at right, responds to questions at a press conference after the trial of Unabomber suspect Theodore Kaczynski was delayed in Sacramento, California, Jan. 8, 1998.(Rich Pedroncelli/AFP via Getty Images)
“She had a very difficult client, one that I think a lot of people would just sort of throw up their hands and say, ‘What can I do?’” Levenson recalled. “And she was able to get him to agree to that plea, which probably saved his life.”
Ted Kaczynski’s brother, David Kaczynski, praised Clarke for her ability to see humanity, even in those who have committed unspeakable atrocities.
“She has a really good heart, a really good intention,” David Kaczynski said. “I think she really cares about her clients. I think she has a kind of unconditional commitment to their humanity. And, of course, that meant a lot to me, because as much as I deplore what my brother did in harming people, I love him. He’s my brother.”
“So it’s a very fine line to walk, representing the client who has clearly got some serious personal problem,” he continued. “Ted was quite a loner. He was very shy. He had a very difficult time connecting with anybody. And in this very difficult situation, Judy was able to be there for him, and I think that was really meaningful for Ted, that he had some support, some human connection at this time of crisis in his life.”
David Kaczynski has followed Clarke’s career and continues to be impressed with her “professionalism and sense of humility.”
“I think the legal profession is trained to be strictly analytical and adversarial,” he said. “And she somehow works within this environment in a way that preserves her humanity as she’s trying to make people aware of the humanity of someone whose very right to exist is in question.”
Some question whether a person who has committed a heinous crime deserves a zealous defense. Levenson insists they do.
Our judicial system is “best served” when capital defendants are provided with a high-caliber defense, Levenson said, because “it’s in these situations where people are so emotionally invested that we can get it wrong.”
In addition to being a former prosecutor, Levenson created the Loyola Project for the Innocent, which works to get those who are serving sentences for crimes they did not commit out of prison.
Defense attorney Judy Clarke, seen here in Pittsburgh in 2023, is representing the man accused of murdering 11 Jews during Shabbat services in Pittsburgh in 2018. (Screenshot from KDKA report)
“I’ve seen firsthand that there are far too many lawyers who just immediately assume that their client’s not only guilty but should get the most severe punishment — that there’s nothing to be said on their client’s behalf,” Levenson said. “And you and I both know there’s a lot more to any given case, and that even people who do terrible crimes have other aspects of their lives that the justice system should consider.”
“In our system, we are supposed to consider each case, each individual, the facts, and not only determine whether someone’s guilty but what should happen to them,” she continued. “And that works well. When you have a lawyer who’s just going through the motions — and the one thing you can say about Judy is she doesn’t just go through the motions — I think the public can have more confidence in the verdict. As long as that lawyer is acting honestly and with integrity, it’s so much better to have that zealous advocate.”
The massacre at the Tree of Life building “was just a terrible, terrible, terrible tragedy,” said Levenson, who is Jewish. Clarke “will do her best to keep the case in perspective. In other words, focus not on big messages, but on this individual and any mitigating factors for this individual.”
Jon B. Gould, dean of the School of Social Ecology at the University of California-Irvine, has researched attorneys who specialize in death penalty cases. In 2019, along with Maya Pagni Barak, he published “Capital Defense: Inside the Lives of America’s Death Penalty Lawyers,” a book based on extensive interviews, providing insight into the reasons someone would willingly represent a person who has committed an egregious crime.
“They are an unusual kind of lawyer,” Gould said. “They’re actually an unusual kind of person because for many of these cases, they are representing what is sometimes said to be ‘the worst of the worst.’”
There are a variety of motivating factors for capital defense work, Gould said. Some of these lawyers are strongly opposed to state-sanctioned killing. For others, he said, “it is the excitement of the most complicated kind of law.”
Other death penalty specialists take the cases for “professional prestige,” and some do it for the money because capital defense lawyers get paid more than regular defense lawyers, Gould said. Some take the cases for religious reasons.
“Now, that’s all in the larger context of none of these lawyers looks at the facts of the case and thinks it’s anything other than a horrific tragedy,” Gould stressed. “I also found that for many of them, they are entirely sympathetic to the family members of the victims. They don’t look at these cases and think, no big deal. They look at these cases and think that’s something horrible that happened to the victim’s family, but they also look at the defendant and think, as one of them said to me, ‘No one gets to this place of being the defendant without having something horrible having happened to them earlier in life.’”
Death penalty cases are “really, really, really hard on defense lawyers,” Gould added. “It’s really distressing work. The evidence that they have to pore through is horrific. Many of them have PTSD.”
While many people “look at defense lawyers and think there must be something wrong with them,” Gould said it’s essential to remember “that they are fulfilling a very important function in the criminal justice system that none of us would ever want to have to do.”
“That doesn’t mean that any of us is unsympathetic to the victims,” he emphasized. “No one deserves what’s happened in any of these cases. But if we do believe in the rule of law, then there needs to be capital defense lawyers. And we need to respect the work they’re doing because that’s what it means to live in a system of rule of law and not simply a system where we simply execute people in the town square without the opportunity to have a defense.”
This story is part of ongoing coverage of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting trial by the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle and the Pittsburgh Union Progress in a collaboration supported by funding from the Pittsburgh Media Partnership. It is reprinted with permission.
—
The post She represents the ‘worst of the worst.’ Now Judy Clarke is leading the defense in Pittsburgh synagogue massacre trial. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
No Hate Crime Charges Yet Filed After 3 Suspects Arrested in Brutal California Assaults of Israeli-Americans
Screenshot from video circulated on social media showing three unknown attackers punch two Israeli-Americans in San Jose, California on March 8, 2026.
California prosecutors have charged three men with felonies and misdemeanors after an attack on two Israeli-Americans overhead speaking Hebrew outside a San Jose restaurant.
The district attorney of Santa Clara County released a statement on Monday, announcing that “Bruneil Henry Chamaki, 32, of Morgan Hill, along with Roma Akoyans, 20, and Ramon Akoyans, 18, of San Jose, self-surrendered today to the San Jose Police Department.”
Video which widely circulated online last week showed three alleged assailants punching Lior Zeevi, 47, and Daniel Levy, 48, leaving the men with injuries which required hospitalization. District Attorney Jeff Rosen said “we won’t tolerate pummeling a victim on the ground in front of a restaurant or anywhere, and we will hold the perpetrators fully accountable.”
Prosecutors have not yet filed hate crime charges against Chamaki—who works as a lawyer—and the Akoyans brothers noting in the release that “these charges do not reflect allegations of a hate crime at this time. However, this remains an active investigation. The DA’s Office is working closely with SJPD to review all new information. We encourage anyone with knowledge about this crime to contact the San Jose Police Department.”
According to the police report, before the assault outside Augustine restaurant on Santana Row began, one of the attackers yelled “f— Jews.” As the three men ran away toward the Valley Fair mall after the beating, a witness heard one of them say “don’t f— with Iran,” according to the police report. The witness told police that he thought the suspects were Persian because he was Persian too.
The arresting officers named the offenses in the police report as “simple assault” and “violate civil rights by force/threat of force.”
Chamaki worked as a lawyer for Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP until January. The firm confirmed the separation and released a statement to Fox KTVU saying “the conduct described in the reports is deeply troubling. Murphy Austin condemns antisemitism, violence, and acts of hatred in any form.” The police report lists the Akoyans as living in San Jose and Roma as a student at West Valley College. The Santa Clara county court scheduled an arraignment for the three suspects on May 12.
The invocation of Iran during the assaults against Levy and Zeevi places the crime as another example of violence targeting Jewish individuals and institutions in response to the US-Israeli attacks against the leadership of the Islamic regime in Iran which resulted in the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Feb. 28.
On Saturday, two individuals detonated a bomb outside a Jewish school in Amsterdam, causing minor damage. An Islamist terror group claimed responsibility, as well as for recent strikes on synagogues in Rotterdam and Liege. On Monday, the Netherlands announced the arrest of four unnamed teenagers—aged 19, 18 and 17—suspected of involvement with the Rotterdam attacks. Dutch prosecutors said the crime sought to instill “serious fear in a population group, in this case the Jewish community.”
On Saturday, the Israel Defense Forces revealed that the brother of Ayman Mohamad Ghazali—the man who committed a terrorist attack on Thursday against the Temple Israel synagogue in Michign—served as a Hezbollah commander who died the previous week in an Israeli airstrike.
Ghazali had rammed his pickup truck through the building’s doors and drove through a hallway, the vehicle loaded with fireworks, before dying from a self-inflicted gunshot wound during a shootout with police, failing in his mission to murder Jews.
On March 1, Ndiaga Diagne, 53, allegedly fired rounds from an AR-15 rifle at people outside Buford’s bar in Austin, Texas, resulting in three deaths and 16 injuries. Investigators say that he wore a sweatshirt that proclaimed him as “Property of Allah” and that a t-shirt underneath featured an Iranian flag design. In addition, when searching Diagne’s home, they found an Iranian flag and photos of Iranian leaders.
The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force has labeled the mass shooting as a “potential act of terrorism” with Acting Special Agent in Charge Alex Doran warning that it was too early to name the motive in spite of the available evidence.
Uncategorized
Joe Kent, Trump official with white supremacist ties, resigns over Iran war and blames Israel
Joe Kent, director of the federal National Counterterrorism Center, resigned Tuesday in a letter to President Donald Trump that claimed Israeli officials had used lies to convince Trump to start the current United States-Israel war against Iran.
Some administration officials, notably Secretary of State Marco Rubio, had previously asserted that Israel compelled the U.S. to strike Iran; Rubio later tempered those claims. But Kent, a controversial figure who has repeatedly engaged with white supremacists and neo-Nazis, made more sweeping — and unproven — assertions in his letter, which Kent posted to social media, declaring the president of a victim of an Israeli “misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran.”
He further claimed Israel had used similar lies “to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war” which he called “manufactured by Israel” without pointing to any evidence. Israeli officials expressed support for striking Sadaam Hussein at the time, but then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon also reportedly warned President George W. Bush not to occupy the country.
Kent’s departure may be a sign that the isolationist wing of the conservative movement — associated with antisemitic influencers like Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes — may be losing influence with the White House. Despite repeated fulminations against the war by isolationists inside and outside of the administration, Trump has shown little sign of recalibrating his approach to the Iran war and recently proposed a possible military incursion in Cuba.
The White House issued a scathing response to Kent’s claim in his resignation letter, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stating, “the absurd allegation that President Trump made this decision based on the influence of others, even foreign countries, is both insulting and laughable.”
It remains to be seen if Kent’s resignation will trigger a wave of departures from within the administration. Congressional Republicans have largely stayed aligned with the president. And Trump himself has moved between suggesting the conflict could end “very soon” and insisting that the United States has not yet achieved “ultimate victory.”
Tulsi Gabbard, who was Kent’s boss in her role as director of national intelligence, once sold campaign merchandise with the slogan “No War With Iran” but has reportedly remained largely silent during the current war while being sidelined within the administration.
Vice President JD Vance, closely aligned with the party’s isolationist wing, reportedly expressed private objections about the Iran war but appears to have been overruled and has yet to publicly voice that view in public.
Meanwhile, Rubio, a longtime foreign policy hawk, has emerged a key advisor to Trump, who has privately surveyed insider opinion about Rubio emerging as heir in 2028.
Kent’s nomination to lead a top counterterrorism agency was contentious from the start. A retired Green Beret and former CIA officer, Kent had twice run unsuccessfully for a House seat in Washington state. In his first bid, Kent was interviewed by a neo-Nazi YouTuber and also met with Fuentes, who has denied the Holocaust. Kent later disavowed Fuentes.
Amy Spitalnick, chief of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, cautioned liberal opponents of the Iran war not to welcome Kent as an ally. “He’s an extremist with deep ties ot Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers who never should have been in this role in the first place,” Spitalnick said in a statement. “Of course, Kent’s own post announcing his resignation is riddled with antisemitic tropes under the guise of blaming Israel.”
Trump, who nominated Kent to his post in the administration and previously supported him, sought to cut bait in comments to reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday afternoon.
“I always thought he was weak on security — very weak on security,” Trump said. “It’s a good thing that he’s out.
The post Joe Kent, Trump official with white supremacist ties, resigns over Iran war and blames Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Dueling letters from Jewish groups dispute prevalence of antisemitism at UCLA
More than 100 Jewish faculty and staff at the University of California, Los Angeles published a letter Monday disputing the Trump administration’s claim in a federal lawsuit against the university that the school has fostered a hostile climate for its Jewish employees.
Following an investigation launched just weeks after Trump’s inauguration, the U.S. Department of Justice filed the case last month, arguing that “UCLA failed to live up to its systemwide commitment to diversity and equal opportunity when it stood by as Jewish employees were subjected to harassment.”
But signatories to the letter dispute this characterization and say that the lawsuit mischaracterizes pro-Palestinian speech and activism as expressions of antisemitism that would justify a federal civil rights case.
“A ‘hostile work environment’ under Title VII is one where we are being harassed so severely or pervasively as to alter our conditions of employment,” the letter states. “It would be legally unprecedented for a court to rule that any category of faculty and staff faces such a hostile work environment primarily on the basis of student speech.”
The lawsuit and letter come on the heels of reporting by ProPublica, the Chronicle of Higher Education and the Los Angeles Times that described deep apprehension among career lawyers within the Department of Justice over the Trump administration’s investigations into the University of California system and its legal claims against UCLA.
Several government lawyers told the publications that the White House directed them to find evidence that UCLA and other campuses in the statewide system had allowed antisemitic discrimination to take place, rather than conducting open-ended investigations to determine whether any legal violations had occurred.
Not all Jewish faculty at UCLA have opposed the lawsuit, and the members of UCLA’s antisemitism task force — which had been critical of the school’s handling of antisemitism claims in its 2024 report — did not sign the open letter.
UCLA was the site of some of the most dramatic scenes and allegations during the Gaza solidarity encampment movement in the spring of 2024. Pro-Israel groups claimed that pro-Palestinian protesters had banned Jewish students from central areas on campus, pointing to bans on “Zionists” entering areas around the encampment. Some members of the local Jewish community subsequently attacked the encampment with pepper spray, fireworks and sticks in one of the most violent incidents of its kind.
The Jewish Faculty Resilience Group at UCLA told the Los Angeles Times that they were not opposed to claims made by the Trump administration: “The DOJ lawsuit reflects the experiences reported by Jewish faculty who described serious harassment, exclusion, and retaliation based on their Jewish identities,” the group said.
The lawsuit focuses on similar allegations as previous federal claims against the school, including that it allowed Jewish faculty and staff to be barred from certain areas of campus by student protesters.
The open letter was signed by 132 Jewish faculty and staff at the university. It is not clear how many faculty are represented by the resilience group, or how many total Jewish employees work at UCLA.
The post Dueling letters from Jewish groups dispute prevalence of antisemitism at UCLA appeared first on The Forward.