|
Lodi News-Sentinel - May 3, 2006
Hamid Hayat's attorney wants new trial
Attorney Wazhma Mojaddidi says judge refused to allow crucial testimony
By Layla Bohm
Hamid Hayat did not get a fair trial on charges related to terrorism because a judge refused to allow crucial testimony, Hayat's attorney alleged in a motion filed Tuesday in federal court.
In her four-page filing, Wazhma Mojaddidi did not specifically name U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr., but she said jurors should have heard numerous portions of testimony.
A jury last week convicted the 23-year-old Lodi man on a charge of providing material support to terrorists and three counts of lying to the FBI. He faces up to 39 years in prison at his July 14 sentencing, which will likely be postponed while attorneys argue the motion for a new trial.
Burrell barred much of the testimony Mojaddidi had sought to introduce during the two-month trial, including that of a retired 35-year FBI agent who planned to tell the jury he believed the FBI bungled the case against Hayat and his father, Umer Hayat.
The elder Hayat, 48, was released to home detention Monday after his jury deadlocked on two counts of lying to the FBI. Prosecutors have not said if they will retry him.
Father and son were arrested last June in what was revealed to be a years-long FBI investigation. Agents had originally targeted two religious leaders in Lodi's Muslim community, and an undercover informant testified he only met Hamid Hayat by accident after he'd been working in Lodi for eight months.
The jury heard almost nothing about the religious leaders' roles in the case. The men were ultimately deported for administrative immigration violations but were never charged criminally.
Prosecutors based their case mostly on Hamid Hayat's own interviews with the FBI, along with secretly recorded conversations made by informant Naseem Khan. Near the end of the trial, Burrell released edited versions of the videotaped interviews to the media, which Mojaddidi said hurt her client.
On the videos, Hamid Hayat described a training camp in northern Pakistan, and prosecutors showed the jury satellite images that appeared to be a camp similar to the one he had described.
Mojaddidi, in turn, called a witness who had gone to the region on a humanitarian mission and agreed to look for the camp. James Lazor testified that he was turned away by Pakistani military officials who ran the camp, but prosecutors objected.
Burrell agreed, and ordered any mention of the Pakistani military stricken from the record. Prosecutor David Deitch mentioned the military comment during his closing argument.
Throughout the trial, prosecutors repeatedly objected to defense questions on the grounds of federal court "Rule 403," which bars testimony that could prejudice the jury without introducing any evidence of real value.
Several attorneys not involved in the case have told the News-Sentinel that it is highly unusual for prosecutors to use the rule. Instead, the defense usually wants to keep damaging information out of trial — and judges frequently overrule the objection.
Time and time again during the Hayats' trial, prosecutors objected and Burrell sided with them. That, Mojaddidi said in her filing, also entitles her client to a new trial.
Mojaddidi has also filed an affidavit from a juror who said the foreman made racist remarks and mentioned media coverage of the case.
http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2006/05/04/terrorism/0_motions_060503.txt
|
