it as moment of rage. he does con cede that honor killings do occur in tribal cultures throughout the islamic world but denies they are a big problem here in america. these are very isolated incident that it happen now and then it is like every other crime. how does he explain all that talk about honor in those jailhouse phone calls between mr. and mrs. al-maleki? i think they thought if they go with honor killing that might get out of jail like they do back home. so they thought the courts with be easier on them because of a culture from another part of the world? yes. we have seen some of the places that they will be more lenient if it is an honor killing or something like that. but that is quite stunning in itself to think that somebody in america could think that they could get a lighter sentence because they labeled it an honor killing?
this is a case about a man, the defendant who committed these horrific and oh so wrong crimes all in the name of his sense of honor. bill: by presenting the case as an honor killing record arguably made the job easier for the defense team. ladies and gentlemen, this is the father of noor. if they could convince even one member of the jury to reject that motive, al-maleki would almost certainly be acquitted of first-degree murder and avoid a life sentence. it is common for iraqi men to no longer be called by their first name when they have a job but to take the name of their child. with al-maleki sobbing in the background she told the jury that what happened was an accident. he hits the curves and goes
of phone calls to his wife. husband and wife were told their conversations were being recorded. even still, those tapes reenforced investigators belief that they were dealing with an honor killing. neither the mother nor the father thinks they did anything wrong to al-maleki. they think noor al-maleki is better off in paradise dispatched there by her father than living as an american
bill: and record intended to make the jury confront that issue. in her mind, record would succeed only if the jury returned a verdict of first-degree murder. that meant the killing was premeditated by a man driven by a sense of shame and dishonor. even if the jury convicted al-maleki on the less serious charge of second-degree murder or even manslaughter it would be a devastating loss for record and a victory for al-maleki and his public defenders. ladies and gentlemen, one of the founding fathers of this country thomas jefferson has been quoted as saying nobody can acquire honor by doing what is wrong. bill: january 24, 2011. prosecutor record made her opening argument to the jury as al-maleki, the accused listened to an arabic translation.
that they were going to come back manslaughter. i was that concerned. bill: on the fourth day of deliberations, the jury reached a verdict. we the jury duly he impanelled and sworn in the aboven titled action on our oath do find the defendant as to count one, first-degree murder a domestic violence offense as to victim noor falaeh al-maleki not guilty we the jury do find the defendant as to count one, second-degree murder guilty. in other words, the jury did not agree that this was a premeditated murder. it was not an honor killing. a defeat for the prosecution. for the injuries suffered by family friend amal, the jury found al-maleki guilty of aggravated assault. he was also found guilty of two counts of leaving the scene of a serious accident. record believed she had failed