“A jury sided with Greda, saying the plaintiffs failed to prove he discriminated against Farghaly based on her religion.”
But that doesn’t matter. He has offended the new protected class. Our moral superiors will keep putting William Greda, and others like him, on trial until they get the verdict they want.
An Elizabeth landlord cleared by a jury last year of charges that he refused to rent an apartment to a Muslim woman must stand trial again, an appellate panel ruled on Wednesday.
The three-court panel ordered a new trial because, the judges say in their 36-page ruling, the landlord’s defense attorney improperly questioned the Muslim woman about her religious beliefs during the initial trial.
By asking her about references to “infidels” in the Quran and Islamic politics, the landlord’s lawyer elicited “highly prejudicial” testimony that had no value and impaired the woman’s credibility in front of the jury, the ruling says.
The judges also said the trial judge improperly declared a televised news interview with the landlord, William Greda, inadmissible as evidence.
“The only victim here is Mr. Greda, who was forced to undergo this malicious prosecution by New Jersey,” said Greda’s attorney, Vincent Sanzone. “The people will speak again in a retrial.”
The dispute at the center of the case dates to February 2016 and it is detailed in the appellate judges’ decision.
Fatma Farghaly alleges she visited Greda’s 17-unit apartment building in Elizabeth wearing a khimar, or head covering. Farghaly alleges Greda asked her if she is Muslim and then told her, “I don’t rent to Muslims” before asking her to leave. Farghaly captured a subsequent conversation with Greda on her phone.
Farghaly reported the incident to Elizabeth police, then to the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The division followed up with two undercover visits. During the first, a division employee wearing a headscarf asked to see an apartment in Greda’s building and says he told her the apartment was “not good” for her. A second division employee not wearing a headscarf visited later and says Greda did not tell her the apartment was unsuitable.
The Civil Rights Division and the state Attorney General’s Office filed a complaint in October 2016 charging Greda with violating Farghaly’s civil rights. Then-Attorney General Christopher Porrino called Greda’s conduct “blatantly bias-driven.”
During the five-day trial, Greda denied Farghaly’s description of events and testified he believed she may have planned the encounter so they could “extort from him to support ISIS.”
A jury sided with Greda, saying the plaintiffs failed to prove he discriminated against Farghaly based on her religion.
The appellate judges took issue with several moments during the trial involving Sanzone. Sanzone repeatedly violated rules of evidence by asking Farghaly about Islam and at one point “gratuitously” suggested her accountant and doctor are Muslim, the judges say.
“Defense counsel’s questioning about Farghaly’s religious beliefs and the principles in the Quran constituted a clear and direct attack on her credibility,” the ruling says. “Indeed, the questioning sought information that had no substantive, probative value to any factual issue presented in the matter.”…
Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.