Hadi Matar talks to members of his legal team Wednesday in Chautauqua County Court. Photo by Gregory Bacon

MAYVILLE – Could a bounty be in place against those who testify in the case involving the a New Jersey man who tried to kill famed author Salman Rushdie? Because the possibility exists, the prosecution wants their names to be withheld from the defender until the trial gets closer.

On Wednesday, Hadi Matar was back in court for the alleged stabbing of Rushdie during a lecture at Chautauqua Institution on Aug. 12.

During the court appearance, District Attorney Jason Schmidt requested a protection order be in place for witnesses and also requested an additional 70 days to present evidence to the defense.

Schmidt noted in his arguments that Matar may have been motivated by a $3 million bounty for anyone who kills Rushdie. A fatwa, or edict, was issued by Iran’s late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, but the Iranian government has not said the bounty was lifted. It was issued due to Rushdie writing the controversial book “The Satanic Verses,” which has been banned in Iran since 1988, as many Muslims consider it to be blasphemous.

Matar’s attorney, Public Defender Nathaniel Barone, opposed Schmidt’s request. “There’s nothing that’s been provided to us to show that the Iranian government is actively supporting the attack on any supporters of Mr. Rushdie who may come forward to testify,” he said.

Foley asked Schmidt if he believes there is a real potential threat to witnesses.

“Yes,” Schmidt replied.

Foley called for a hearing Friday and told Schmidt he needs to show evidence to that end. He also said he may permit the prosecution to speak privately without the public or the defense team in the courtroom.

On Friday, Foley will also decide on Schmidt’s request for an additional time to provide evidence to the defense.

According to Schmidt, state law requires the prosecution to turn over to the defense the evidence to be used within 20 days of an indictment. In a case with an exceptional amount of material, Schmidt said they are automatically granted an additional 30 days. On Wednesday, Schmidt asked the 30 days be increased to 70 days, which would place the evidence 90 days after the initial indictment.

Barone also objected to the increase in time.

He discussed his opposition after the hearing. “By law, we should be getting that information as soon as possible. … It gives the defense an early look, a head’s up, on everything the prosecution is going to use at trial,” he said.

Schmidt, meanwhile, has insisted he needs the additional time because he has “over 30,000 files” of evidence that he’s going through, mostly provided by the state police.

Foley said although he doesn’t doubt Schmidt that he has all these files, he said he needs to prove this in court as well.

After court, Barone said he may appeal the judge’s rulings should he lose Friday. “We’re going to be ready for that (appeal) if that’s in our client’s best interest,” he said.