|
Sacramento Bee – April 29, 2006
Umer Hayat ordered freed on bond after his mistrial
By Denny Walsh
After fighting for his freedom for 330 days, a Lodi man charged with lying about his terrorist ties was ordered released on bond to home arrest Friday by a Sacramento federal judge.
Umer Hayat's 10-week trial on two counts of making a false statement to FBI agents ended Tuesday with a deadlocked jury and a mistrial.
In a surprising turn of events, U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. found Friday the outcome of the trial makes it less likely that Hayat, a 48-year-old ice cream street vendor, would flee to avoid prosecution.
"Specifically," the judge said, "the extent of the jury divide could cause (Hayat) to believe he has a chance of obtaining a similar result in a retrial, whereas it is doubtful he had that notion before trial."
Over prosecutors' objections, Burrell ordered Hayat released on $390,000 bond secured either by the Hayat family's Lodi home or a pledge of the equity held in the home by Umer Hayat and his half brother, Umer Khatab.
Hayat has been in Sacramento County's downtown jail since June 5.
The Hayat jury split 7-5 for conviction on the charge that Hayat lied about his son's attendance at a jihadi training camp in Pakistan when he was first questioned by the FBI. The panel split 6-6 on the charge that he also lied during the initial questioning about his firsthand knowledge of terrorist training in his native Pakistan.
Also on Tuesday, a separate jury found Hayat's 23-year-old son, Hamid Hayat, guilty of providing material support to terrorists by undergoing firearms training in Pakistan and returning to Lodi 11 months ago ready to wage violent jihad against his fellow U.S. citizens. …..
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14249497p-15066462c.html
AMP Report - April 29, 2006
Terror trial juror says 'I never believed that Hamid Hayat was guilty'
Call for new trial of Hamid Hayat
after juror disavows verdict
American Muslim organizations today called for retrial of Pakistani-American, Hamid Hayat, after a member of his jury filed a sworn affidavit disavowing the guilty verdict.
Hamid Hayat, 23, was convicted last Tuesday of providing "material support" to terrorists and lying to the FBI. Yesterday, Arcelia Lopez, one of the jurors in the case filed an affidavit alleging that she was bullied into a guilty verdict by fellow jurors who exhibited a pattern of misconduct and racism.
In the affidavit, the juror states: "I never once throughout the deliberation process and the reading of the verdict believed Hamid Hayat to be guilty. . .I never believed that Hamid Hayat was guilty. My fellow jurors knew it and as a result of changing my vote a unanimous verdict was reached. I deeply regret my decision."
In the seven-page affidavit, juror Lopez said: "Joseph Cote, as the foreman, told the jury that we had to reach a verdict and he refused to accept my position. He personally attacked me repeatedly as someone who couldn't process the information and who just couldn't see that he was guilty because he thought I didn't have the mental capacity to understand."
Hayat's attorney, Wazhma Mojaddidi, on Friday filed a motion for a new trial based on jury misconduct. The juror's affidavit means Hamid Hayat, of Lodi, California, should get a new trial, the attorney argued in a motion filed in federal court.
"Basic principles of justice dictate that a conviction must be based on a unanimous verdict reached in an atmosphere free of coercion and bias," said CAIR Sacramento Executive Director Basim Elkarra. The American Muslim Voice Executive Director, Samina Faheem Sundas, also called for a new trial in the case in view of the juror’s affidavit.
Prosecutors in Hamid Hayat's case have said repeatedly since Tuesday's verdict that they don't believe there was any improper influence on jurors, and that any pressure on Lopez was part of the normal jury deliberation process.
Though emotional, Lopez confirmed her guilty vote in open court Tuesday when all 12 jurors were questioned by presiding U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. "I deeply regret my decision," Lopez said in the affidavit.
Prosecutors say Hayat, 23, should face a minimum 30 years in prison at his July 14 sentencing based on his convictions on charges he provided material support by attending the terror camp in 2003 and lying about it to FBI agents when he was questioned after he returned to the United States in May.
Hayat told agents in an hours-long videotaped statement that he was awaiting orders to carry out a religious war against targets such as banks, groceries and hospitals. Mojaddidi disputes the confession and says there is no direct proof Hayat attended the camp.
Earlier, the case against his father, Umer Hayat, 48, ended in a mistrial when a separate jury couldn't reach a verdict on whether he lied to the FBI about his son's alleged training.
In the elder Hayat's case, the jury of eight women and four men deliberated nearly eight days before saying Tuesday morning it could not reach a verdict. After deliberating a little more than an hour on last Tuesday, the jury sent a note to the Judge stating they were "decisively deadlocked."
Both Hamid and Umer Hayat were detained along with two Pakistani religious leaders in what authorities suggested was part of a terrorist movement in Lodi, 35 miles south of the California state capital. The two imams and one man's son were deported for immigration violations, however, and the Hayats were the only people criminally charged in the probe.
Reporting about the Hamid Hayat’s conviction, the New York Times quoted legal experts as saying that the prosecution's celebration might be short-lived because a federal appeals court had twice ruled unconstitutional some aspects of the law on which Mr. Hayat was convicted. They also said Mr. Hayat's reported confessions to FBI agents could be challenged on the ground they were coerced from a frightened suspect with a limited command of English.
Los Angeles Times - April 26, 2006
Lodi trial:
For the Justice Department, a welcome conviction
The government has experienced a series of missteps
and false starts in some terrorism cases
By Richard B. Schmitt
WASHINGTON — The conviction of a Lodi man on terrorism-related charges Tuesday is a much-needed victory for the Justice Department, which has stumbled recently in its pursuit of terrorism suspects in the courts.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, federal prosecutors have won cases against, among others, an Ohio truck driver accused of plotting to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge and a man who threatened to kill President Bush.
But there have also been a series of missteps and false starts. The government has seen juries starting to reject charges in some high-profile cases. In one instance, a judge threw out terrorism charges because of alleged misconduct by a federal prosecutor who was later indicted.
The flubs have provided ammunition to critics of the Justice Department and threatened to undermine public confidence in whether the prosecutions are protecting the nation from serious threats.
Tuesday's guilty verdict against 23-year-old Hamid Hayat was a measure of vindication. Hayat had been charged in connection with attending what prosecutors said was a terrorist camp in Pakistan in 2003 and then lying about his attendance to the FBI. A separate jury deadlocked on charges that his father lied to authorities about his son's participation at the camp, and a mistrial was declared.
Hayat was charged under a federal law that makes it a crime to provide "material support" to terrorists.
The case shows how prosecutors are attempting to use the law to disrupt what they see as evolving terrorist plots before they reach fruition.
But the strategy, first enunciated by Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft a few weeks after the attacks at the Pentagon and in New York, has also been highly controversial.
Its supporters say it is an important tool to head off threats. Critics say it allows the government to subject people to lengthy prison terms based on little evidence that they intended to hurt anyone.
In effect, "you prosecute people not for what they have done but for what you fear they might do in the future," said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor. Some courts have held parts of the "material support" law unconstitutional on grounds that the law fails to give defendants adequate notice of what is illegal.
The prosecution of Hayat and his father appeared to be one such marginal case. The only evidence against the men were the videotaped confessions they gave last June to FBI agents and the testimony of a paid government informant.
Defense lawyers said the confessions were obtained under duress. The informant's credibility also seemed hurt after he testified to having seen a senior Al Qaeda operative in Lodi — a sighting that terrorism experts universally dismissed as unlikely.
But ultimately, the government was able to prove that Hayat himself was not credible. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales said in a statement after the verdict Tuesday that "justice has been served against a man who supported and trained with our terrorist enemies in pursuit of his goal of violent jihad."
The courtroom victory was also unusual because most of the convictions the Justice Department has won since the Sept. 11 attacks have come by defendants pleading guilty to crimes rather than by the government proving its case in a court of law. The verdict also reverses what had been a worrisome trend for prosecutors.
In a major setback two years ago, a federal jury in Idaho acquitted a computer science student accused of aiding terrorists when he designed a website that included information on terrorists in Chechnya and Israel. Lawyers for Sami Omar al-Hussayen successfully argued that the government was seeking to criminalize his political views.
The government suffered another loss in December when a jury in Tampa, Fla., acquitted a former college professor indicted on charges of supporting terrorists by promoting the cause of Palestinian groups. The Justice Department had touted the case of Sami Al-Arian as an illustration of how the Patriot Act was empowering investigators by enabling law enforcement officials and intelligence operatives to share information.
And just last month, a former assistant U.S. attorney, Richard Convertino, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Detroit for alleged misconduct in connection with what was the first federal terrorism trial after the Sept. 11 attacks. Convertino has adamantly denied the charges, and has said he is being made a scapegoat for missteps by his Justice Department supervisors.
http://www.latimes.com/services/site/premium/access-registered.intercept
|
