A US court on Wednesday dismissed the terrorism charge against an Indian accused of a seven-hour university shooting rampage in 2003, but retained 201 other charges against him, including aggravated murder.
Biswanath Halder's attack against a 'small, random' group of people in Case Western Reserve University's business school building did not constitute a terrorist attack on the civil population as defined by Ohio law, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Peggy Foley ruled.
If convicted of the aggravated murder charge, 65-year-old Halder, who hails from Calcutta, could get death penalty.
- Also read: Is Biswanath Halder insane
One person was killed and two wounded in the seven-hour-long shooting spree at University on May 9, 2003.
The prosecution made the argument that Halder went to the university's Business School with more than 1000 rounds of ammunition because he thought that a computer lab employee had hacked into his website that was set up to help people from India form businesses.
According to the prosecution, Halder had the intention of intimidating people 'into submission'.
But John Luskin, Halder's attorney argued that the Ohio law on terrorism enacted in 2002 did not apply to this case because his client 'did not intend to terrorise the civilian population,' defined in legal precedent as a group of people distinct from the military.
The Halder trial came to a close on Tuesday with the prosecution calling as many as 108 witnesses to the stand over three weeks.
When the trial started on November 28, Kevin Cafferkey, who also represents Halder, apologised to the family of Norman Wallace, the student allegedly shot dead by Halder.
It became clear soon that the lawyers would not deny the charges that Halder killed Wallace and wounded others but they were going to prove that he had gone into a rage, after months of agonising over the failure of his lawsuit against Shawn Miller.
Judge Jones's decision came before the final summations could be heard and the case goes to the jury. She said she did not believe that shooting at a small group of people was an act of terrorism as defined by Ohio law.
Ohio introduced the terrorism law following the 9/11 attacks in New York. The law specially pertains to anyone who tried to kill people on government or quasi government property.
The decision was a blow to prosecutor Richard Bell who had insisted on retaining the terrorism charge.
A number of defense attorneys had quit defending Halder, telling the court that he does not cooperate with them.
Halder had earlier pleaded with the judge that he be allowed to represent himself.
He also insisted that his attorneys were part of the prosecution team. But Judge Jones insisted that Luskin and Cafferkey proceed with the defence.
(With PTI inputs)
