AZ Shows How To Prosecute Terrorism In State Court

Print More

An FBI agent’s testimony yesterday offered a window into an elaborate investigation into a terrorist suspect involving undercover agents, a burner phone, and months of communications as the Tucson teenager reportedly mapped his Arizona attacks, reports the Arizona Republic.  The case against Mahin Khan offers a window into how more terrorism-related cases may be heard in Arizona’s state courts, rather than in federal court, as the result of what Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich calls a more “forward-leaning” approach to detain would-be terrorists before they’re able to act.

Khan’s is believed to be the first terrorism-related case in Arizona tried in state, rather than federal, court. He is charged with inciting or inducing terrorism, financing or managing terrorism and with manufacturing, possessing or selling a prohibited weapon. Unlike federal laws, Arizona statutes do not require an “overt act” to prove terrorism conspiracy, Brnovich said. While federal prosecutors would have to provide evidence that a suspect, for example, purchased a weapon or explosive, Arizona law only requires evidence of intent, such as an agreement between the suspect and another person. “If you look at what’s happened … in San Bernardino and then in Orlando I think that everyone recognizes that no one can do this alone,” Brnovich said, speaking about terrorism cases in general. “Especially in light of the fact that we see these lone-wolf or small terror cells operating in other parts of the world — this is a problem where you’re going to need state, local and federal officials working together.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


You have Free articles left this month.

Want access to all our reporting? Subscribe for unlimited access or login.