Mistrial declared in one (Lodi) terror case

[Newsjock]

http://www.sacbee.com/content/breakingnews/story/14247601p-15065167c.html

Associated Press

A mistrial was declared Tuesday in the federal terrorism trial of a Lodi man charged with lying to protect his son, who authorities say attended an al-Qaida training camp in Pakistan.

The announcement came one day after the jury told U.S. District Court Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. that it could not reach a unanimous decision.

... Umer Hayat, a 48-year-old ice cream vendor, is charged with lying to FBI agents about whether his son attended the terror training camp while on a visit to Pakistan in 2003. His son, 23-year-old Hamid Hayat, stood trial before a separate jury. That jury continued to deliberate on Tuesday.

... The case against the father and son initially generated widespread interest because it raised concerns about a potential terrorist cell centered in the agricultural town about 35 miles south of the state capital. No such evidence arose during their trial.

[BR_Parkway]

1. Ice cream vendors and Quakers - be afraid, be afraid - so, what does

that do to the total Terror prosecutions?

Only one I can think of that's been anything so far was the "20th hijacker" and he pled guilty.

Has Herr Bush and Co obtained one conviction? All this spying, changes to the Patriot Act - do we have anything for it besides knowing what the FL Quakers planned to do at a protest rally?

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Let's not forget that the 20th hijacker plead guilty because

he has a martyr complex, and all the evidence shows that he knew no particulars about 9/11, and only insignificant knowledge about the general plot.

But the government wouldn't execute someone who was really innocent, would they? I mean, this isn't the days of Sacco and Vanzetti, or Bruno Hauptman.

[Kagemusha]

5. It's not so much a question of innocence as

aspiring to evil vs. having managed to commit it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. True. I hope we haven't reached a point where we will condemn

a man to death for FAILING to commit a crime.

[Kagemusha]

8. I think we have arrived at that precise point.

We'll see though.

[AlCzervik]

3. not surprised one bit, we've been hearing for weeks now that the

governments case was built on a foundation of quick sand. the www.sacbee.com has been doing a good job covering this.

[Ranec]

4. At least one person stood against the hysteria.

I'm glad that at least one juror was able to see beyond the terrorism hysteria, and look at the actual laws.

Any word on whether the prosecutors will seek a new trial? Maybe wait uuntil after the next election?

[Disturbed]

6. The Bush Regime is desperately trying to...

shore up their support by sham charges on anyone remotely on the fringe of
Islamic terrorists. It is more "catapulting the propaganda" of the RW protecting America BS.

[rodeodance]

9. BIG press conference when the 'terrorists' were arrested. now Blick.

[Jazz2006]

10. I think that laying on all the extra charges for "lying" is just wrong.

From the link:

"Hayat was found guilty of providing material support to terrorists by allegedly attending an al-Qaida camp while visiting Pakistan in 2003 and three counts of lying about it."

What's with the charges against an accused person for lying to investigators while he is the subject of an investigation? It seems wrong to me that such a law should even be on the books. I mean, come on, that leaves any suspect's only options either to say nothing at all or to confess. And even though we all know that we have the option to say nothing, it should not come as a big surprise to anyone that it is very, very difficult to remain silent in the face of interrogation by trained professionals. The pressure can be enormous and it is very difficult for an accused person to remain silent despite the knowledge that one has the right to do so. When the pressure becomes too great to remain silent, it should hardly be surprising that a guilty person might lie. (It is also not surprising that an innocent person might "confess" to something he didn't do).

But, even if he's guilty, it just seems wrong to me to charge him with "lying", let alone convict him of it.

As for the father, well, in my view, if all the father did was deny the allegations against his son, which is what it appears from the linked story (as opposed to, say, inventing a fictitious alibi for him or something), then I just don't think it's right to be able to charge the father, either.

[NYC]

12. I totally agree re the father.

..."As for the father, well, in my view, if all the father did was deny the allegations against his son, which is what it appears from the linked story (as opposed to, say, inventing a fictitious alibi for him or something), then I just don't think it's right to be able to charge the father, either."...

It seems strange to me. It sounds as though they were desperate to convict someone.

[Jazz2006]

15. Yes, it does seem

rather desperate, doesn't it?

I don't get it.

[HuffleClaw]

11. yet one more trumped up case of racial profiling

a sad statement about the current state of american 'justice'

[Bigmack]

13. Reminds me of the old George Carlin....

bit about sin in the Catholic Church when he was growing up. (me too!)

"It was a sin to think about feeling up BettySue, a sin to take her to a place to feel her up, it was a sin to actually feel her up, and it was a sin to think about how great it was to feel her up afterward."

If it's a crime to think about doing something that may or may not be a crime, and then lie about it.... we're all fucked!

This whole thing also reminds me about who gets jury duty and actually empaneled.

[pinniped]

14. Evidence, we don't need no stinking evidence.

If he claimed the evil terra camp was on Titan, one of Saturn's moons, the dumbass jury would still have convicted him.

I predicted the jury would convict at least one of them.

[Scurrilous]

16. Juror claims she was pressured to convict Lodi terror suspect

<snip>

"Defense attorneys for a Lodi man convicted on terrorism-related charges this week are asking for a new trial after one of the jurors in the case gave a sworn statement saying she was pressured into finding him guilty.

In a motion filed in federal court late Thursday, attorney Wazhma Mojaddidi argued for that Hamid Hayat should be retried based on the affidavit of Arcelia Lopez.

"I was under so much stress and pressure (from the other jurors) that I agreed to change my vote," Lopez, of Sacramento, said in her statement. "I never once throughout the deliberation process and the reading of the verdict believed Hamid Hayat to be guilty."

Meanwhile, prosecutors are expected to tell U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. on Friday if they will retry Hayat's father, Umer Hayat, after jurors deadlocked in his case earlier this week. Burrell had set a hearing on whether Umer Hayat should be released on bail.

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."

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/14448814.htm