Law Office of Michael K. Bachrach Attorney at Law

Bachrach was essentially arguing for an exception to the Supreme Court rule that courts may not reverse inconsistent jury verdicts. He argued — quite creatively — that the one count on which Ghailani was convicted (Conspiracy to Destroy Buildings and Property of the U.S.), included U.S. property anywhere in the world, not just the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Because Ghailani was acquitted of conspiracy to bomb those embassies, he argued, the government was required to put forward some evidence that Ghailani was conspiring to bomb some other U.S. property, for that count to be distinguishable from the others. Otherwise, the count is redundant and impermissible. Because the only conspiracy addressed at trial was the one to bomb the two East African embassies, Bachrach reasoned, there simply was not enough evidence to support the guilty verdict reached on Count 5.