Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Lodi Terrorism Trials—Jury Deliberation

For three days, two federal juries have been deliberating in one terrorism case in Sacramento, California.[1] At issue is whether a Lodi, California father—Umer Hayat—and his son—Hamid Hayat—should be convicted on a range of terrorism offenses.[2] Umer is charged with “lying to the FBI to conceal his son’s terrorist training and his own firsthand knowledge of Pakistani training camps,”[3] while Hamid is “charged with providing material support to terrorism by undergoing training in Pakistan”[4] and then returning to Lodi in May 2005 in order to commit acts of violence against the United States, as well as also making false statements.[5]

The dual juries are “watching videotaped interrogations of Hamid and Umer … by FBI agents in June, just before the pair were arrested and jailed”; those jurors considering Hamid’s case have approximately one hour of video remaining to watch, while the jurors deliberating on Umer’s case have nearly one-and-a-half hours left.[6] During Hamid’s interrogation, he apparently said “that he went to a camp in Pakistan and received firearms training” and that he “lied when he initially denied to agents that he had undergone training.”[7] During Umer’s interrogation, he apparently told interrogators “that he lied when he initially denied to agents that his son had attended a training camp” and that he “visited four such Pakistani camps strictly as an observer in 2004, including one where his son had trained.”[8]

The decision to empanel dual juries was made in mid-January “in order to remedy potential issues under [9].”[10] Bruton “presents the question … whether the conviction of a defendant at a joint trial should be set aside although the jury was instructed that a codefendant’s confession inculpating the defendant had to be disregarded in determining his guilt or innocence.”[11] The defendant in Bruton challenged his conviction in a trial where he and a co-defendant were tried together. During the trial, the government introduced into evidence the oral confession of the co-defendant as well as an admission that he had an accomplice which he would not name.[12] The co-defendant’s conviction was set aside on the ground that his oral confessions should not have been received in evidence against him.[13] The defendant’s confession was upheld because the jury had been instructed that the co-defendant’s confession was competent evidence against the co-defendant, but it was inadmissible hearsay against the defendant and had to be disregarded in determining his guilt or innocence.[14]

The US Supreme Court, however, held that there was a “substantial risk that the jury, despite instructions to the contrary, looked to the incriminating extrajudicial statements in determining [defendant’s] guilt.”[15] Therefore, the conviction against the defendant was reversed.[16]

In the Hayats’ case, the dual juries are intended to combat the problem of having both defendants appear on videotape apparently confessing to lying to investigators. District Judge Burrell noted that “the government argues and Defendants indicate that empanelling two juries will avoid Bruton issues,” so he ordered 12 jurors and four alternates to be empanelled for each Defendant “unless space limitations in the courtroom indicate fewer alternate jurors should be empanelled.”[17]

A final note: Because the alleged false statements involve international or domestic terrorism, the defendants potentially face up to 8 years in prison, rather than the 5 years that is available under non-terrorism-related false statements offenses.[18]


[1] Denny Walsh, , Sacramento Bee, Apr. 18, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] See .
[4] See .
[5] Walsh, supra note 1.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] 391 U.S. 123 (1968).
[10] United States v. Hayat, No. 2:05-cr-0240, Order (Docket Entry 150), (E.D. Cal. 2006) (available through PACER).
[11] Bruton, supra note 9.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Hayat, supra note 10.
[18] See 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a).

posted by McNabb Associates, P.C. @ 8:50 AM