Dana El-Kurd

This is certainly a very confusing charge.

Yeah.

Now, this statute lists at least 28 possible terrorism offenses.

Now, relevant to this case are three.

18 U.S.C.

844F, which is maliciously attempting to damage government property by means of fire or an explosive.

For the purposes of this case, that is throwing fireworks at a building.

18 U.S.C.

1361, that's willful depredation against any property of the United States exceeding $1,000.

For the purposes of this case, this would be damaging government property in other ways, like slashing tires, graffiti, that sort of thing.

And finally, 18 USC 114, killing or attempting to kill an officer or employee of the United States.

That's pretty self-explanatory.

Yeah.

To quote the jury instructions, Yeah.

Yeah.

Unquote.

So the jury does not need to find proof that all of these three terrorism offenses were committed, that the explosives charge, the destruction of government property charge, or the attempted killing charge.

They just need to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that material support was provided for one of these.

Part of what makes this charge kind of dangerous is that we don't know which terroristic crime or crimes the jury found sufficient evidence for or if they used different offenses for different defendants.

nor do we explicitly know what the jury thought qualified as material support.