MEDFORD, Ore. — A federal trial of a Klamath Falls man for kidnapping, sex and weapons crimes rests with its jury today, after a morning detour that U.S. District Court Chief Judge Michael McShane steered to keep the criminal case on course.
30-year-old Negasi Zuberi is on trial at the James A. Redden U.S. Courthouse in Medford, accused impersonating a police officer and using a gun, taser, handcuffs, leg irons, cell phone signal blockers, his Honda Pilot and his Klamath Falls residence and a cinder block captivity cell in it for the kidnapping and raping of two women in separate 2023 incidents.
The jury started deliberation this afternoon, with lunch delivered for the sequestered jurors whose delibertion started 12:27pm.
This morning after the U.S. Attorneys Office for Oregon (USAO), the case prosecution, made its closing statement to close its part of the case, Zuberi told Judge McShane he wanted to testify.
McShane reminded Zuberi he’d had the opportunity to testify prior during the two-week trial, and that he’d told Judge McShane yesterday during a discussion of his right to testify that he would not testify in his trial.
McShane took a break to consider the request, then reaffirmed to Zuberi that his request was too late, coming after the prosecutor’s case against him had otherwise concluded for the jury such that his request seemed “a ploy.”
During the prosecutor’s closing argument Assistant U.S. Attorney for Oregon Nathan Lichvarcik told jurors, “(Name of victim/AV1) told you what Negasi Zuberi did to her. (Name of other victim/AV2) told you what Negasi Zuberi did to her. How they both got into the Honda Pilot and did not come out the same. The problem is not the Honda Pilot. It was the man driving it.”
Negasi Zuberi photo prior to 2023 case
Judge McShane handled the Zuberi request while the jury was out of the courtroom, after Zuberi’s defense lawyer Amy Potter told Judge McShane that Zuberi wanted to testify.
Judge McShane recounted their conversation yesterday about whether Zuberi would testify and, “Without hesitation, you unequivocally said, ‘I will not testify,'” as part of his recap of a conversation yesterday about Zuberi’s right to testify.
Zuberi’s choice to not testify reflects his right whether to testify, and Judge McShane told jurors at the outset of Zuberi’s trial that a defendant does not have to testify to defend themselves and that the U.S. government has the full burden to prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
McShane repeated that information this morning when he told everyone in the courtroom, including Zuberi, that he would give the jury its deliberation instructions to start today’s trial proceeding, then the U.S. government would present it closing case argument followed by the Defense’s closing argument.
Judge McShane then during the earlier proceeding moved from the Court’s bench to the floor with a podium at the center of the courtroom to methodically and thoroughly recite jury instructions count by count for Zuberi’s federally-indicted seven criminal counts, making them understandable for considering verdicts for each count.
Then the prosecution presented its closing argument to conclude its case, reminding jurors of the accounts and experiences of women who’d testified about being kidnapped and raped by Zuberi and reviewing physical evidence to support their claims and support the prosecution case.
“This is not a time where we can take additional evidence,” McShane told Zuberi, his lawyers and the court — without jurors — as he already had instructed the jury that jurors had heard all of the evidence.
McShane told Zuberi, “You changed your mind too late.”
“We had a very clear conversation,” the Judge reminded, saying there was no confusion yesterday about Zuberi not testifying in his trial, whether that day or today.
Zuberi insisted, holding his defense lawyers responsible for his late request, “I wanted to testify before, and they persuade me not to. I would like to testify, please.”
USAO’s Suzanne Miles told the court that the federal court system lists four considerations for such a late defense motion to allow a defendant to testify, including:
- timeliness of the defendant’s motion
- character of proposed testimony: court can ask for proffer of testimony.
- disruptive effect of granting the motion
- whether defendant has offered a reasonable excuse for the late request.
“The government does not have a position,” Miles told the Court in response to whether it opposed the request.
McShane asked Zuberi about the nature of his testimony, and Zuberi replied, “Testify about (name/AV1) and (name/AV2) and what happened and my version of the story. Who I am as a person and things like that.”
As Judge McShane excused himself to consider the motion, Zuberi’s mother returned to the courtroom and later talked to NewsWatch 12.
McShane returned to the courtroom and repeated that Zuberi had told him yesterday that he declined his right to testify, saying Zuberi’s late motion to testify, “is in fact a ploy to disrupt the case … because Mr. Zuberi has not had any problems asking me to do anything … Mr. Zuberi has asked in the past to appoint new counsel and … to move the case, and I’ve done so … and to move it back, and I’ve done so.”
McShane had noted that Zuberi made the choice to dismiss his right to testify when it would have accepted as part of the Defense’s case evidence before the Defense rested its case yesterday, “Instead, he has listened to the government’s case … and asked me to allow him a chance to rebut that … It would have a disruptive effect on the case…. as some point there is a finality to the evidence, and that finality was yesterday when the Defense rested. … that Defense made it evident to me that they would be presenting no more evidence in the case,” yesterday before Judge McShane’s jury instructions at this morning’s outset.
Judge McShane said he considered all four factors and, “All are against Mr. Zuberi.”
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
