Lodi Terrorism Trial—New Evidence of Jury Misconduct and Motion for New Trial

The situation surrounding the Lodi terrorism trial, in which Hamid Hayat was convicted and his father—Umer—received a mistrial, keeps getting more and more interesting. According to a court filing yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. “said the [jury] foreman had contacted an alternate juror to ask her about another juror. The alternate juror then contacted [Judge] Burrell’s courtroom deputy this week.”^[1] The alternate juror, Marta Watanabe, “said in her telephone message left with the court that the foreman ‘asked her a question about Arcelia Lopez.’”^[2] Ms. Lopez is the woman we discussed last week, who first suggested that the foreman, Joseph Cote, was racist, that there was undue pressure on her, and that outside information had been brought into the jury room. Ms. Watanabe stated that Mr. Cote contacted her on April 20, 2006^[3] which was the day before the jury sent a note to the judge saying that “a juror ‘does not seem to fully comprehend the deliberation process.’”^[4]

Before deliberations began, Judge Burrell instructed the jurors to avoid media coverage of the case and not to “discuss the case with anyone, including alternate jurors.”^[5]

Hamid Hayat has also filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal, or, in the alternative, a new trial.^[6] Motions for judgments of acquittals are covered by Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter FRCrP]. A judgment of acquittal must be entered if, on defendant’s motion, it is shown there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction.^[7] Motions for new trials are covered by FRCrP 33, and if the request is based on anything except newly discovered evidence, the motion must be filed within 7 days.^[8]

The motion for a judgment for acquittal filed in Mr. Hayat’s case is based on the argument that the “government produced no evidence to prove that [Mr. Hayat] attended a terrorist training camp in Pakistan.”^[9] There was no corroborating evidence, by the lead case agents own admission, that he “went to a camp in Pakistan,” and the only evidence that was introduced that supported that conclusion was his “alleged ‘confession’ to the FBI, [which] was unreliable and insufficient to prove that he actually attended a camp.”^[10]

The motion for a new trial is based on the insufficient evidence grounds, as well as the following non-exclusive grounds: that Mr. Hayat was denied his right to a Speedy Trial, that his Motion to Dismiss on Multiplicity Grounds should have been granted prior to the commencement of trial, that his Motion to Compel Discovery, that his expert witnesses should have been permitted to testify, that certain evidence should have been introduced, and that he was “entitled to be heard and state [his] response to the government’s numerous objections during [his] direct and cross-examination of witnesses.”^[11] A hearing on these motions has been set for May 19. The last points mentioned relate to an attempt by the defendant to call 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,” to which Judge Burrell agreed and “ordered any mention of the Pakistani military stricken from the record.”^[12]

---

[1] Layla Bohm, More Allegations Against Juror, Lodi News-Sentinel, May 4, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] See United States v. Hayat, No. 2:05-cr-00240 (E.D. Cal. 2006), Docket Entry # 343, available via PACER.
[4] Bohm, supra note 1.
[5] Id.
[6] See Hayat, supra note 3, Docket Entry # 339. See also Layla Bohm, Hamid Hayat’s Attorney Wants New Trial, Lodi News-Sentinel, May 3, 2006.
[7] FRCrP 29(a), (c).
[8] See Id. 33(b)(2). The defendant has 3 years if the request is based on newly discovered evidence. Id. 33(b)(1).
[9] Hayat, supra note 6, at 2.
[10] Id.
[11] Id. at 3.
[12] Bohm, supra note 6.