Ranting to /dev/null

That's odd

So now Moussaoui wants to withdraw his guily plea because he says he... lied under oath about being involved in 9/11? Whaa....? Huh?

If I were his lawyer, I'd be tempted to file a motion to revisit the competence of my defendent as he's obviously completely [expeletive deleted] insane.

But I think the Federal procedural rules are there for a reason, and I think this is that reason. He thought he was going to be executed and wanted to be. Weird, but let's go with that for a minute. Then he didn't like the way his sentence turned out and wants to reverse the ruling. Don't think so.

Usually, what happens is someone pleas "not guilty", is convicted, and then gets a stiff-to-maximum sentence for the "not guilty" plea. If you plea "guilty", juries and judges are likelier to go easy on you. So once you're convicted, and it's obvious you're going to jail, you aren't allowed to re-plea in an attempt to reduce your sentence.

This case doesn't exactly fit that pattern, but I think the principle still applies: just because you don't like your sentence does not give you the right to withdraw a non-coerced plea one way or the other. Furthermore, why should we believe him now?

I'm also pretty sure that admitting to an entirely different felony of which you have not been accused - perjury in this case - isn't exactly a good way of getting yourself out of trouble.