I wanted to provide SM readers with a quick update on the trials of the ice cream truck driver and his son from Lodi, California. As you may remember the father’s prosecution resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, while the son was convicted on one charge of providing material support to terrorists and three counts of lying to the FBI (he faces up to 39 years in prison). Last Friday the U.S. Attorney’s office said that it will have another go at the elder Hayat:

Federal prosecutors announced Friday that they will retry a Lodi man whose first trial on charges that he lied to FBI agents during a terrorism investigation ended in a mistrial last month after half the jury voted for acquittal on one of the counts.

U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. set June 5 as the new trial date for Pakistani American Umer Hayat, 48, on two counts that he made false statements about his son’s training at a terrorist camp in Pakistan in 2003-04 and about his own knowledge of such camps.

“In the post-9/11 environment in which we live,” said U.S. Atty. McGregor Scott, “lying to the FBI in the course of a terrorism investigation is serious misconduct. False information may result in agents losing valuable time to foil a deadly plot, or perhaps bringing the wrong person or persons under suspicion.”

After deliberating for more than a week, jurors in the first trial reported April 25 that they were hopelessly deadlocked. According to prosecutors, the jurors split 7 to 5 in favor of conviction on one count and 6 to 6 on the other. [Link]

<

p>This wasn’t about just one holdout juror. Half the jury thought that there was reasonable doubt, especially considering the fact that the father was accused of providing misleading statements in order to protect his own son AND the fact that the FBI used shady interviewing techniques. Umer Hayat’s attorney sounded confident with respect to the outcome of a second trial:

“Continuing to pursue Umer Hayat on the charge of lying will have a chilling effect on people in the community coming forward and talking to the FBI,” Griffin said. “Umer Hayat did not have to go to the FBI. He voluntarily went to the FBI to talk with them and then found he was being accused of being a terrorist. When they couldn’t prove that, they accused him of being a liar.” [Link]

As a side note, Hayat’s homecoming upon his release was bittersweet:

Hayat’s homecoming was a mixture of joy and sorrow: Moments after learning of his immediate release Monday morning, Hayat’s attorney told him that his father, who had lived with him in Lodi, died Saturday. [Link]

There is also some post-trial controversy surrounding the conviction of the son, Hamid Hayat. After the trial ended with a conviction, one juror vociferously claimed that she had been bullied into a guilty vote despite her belief that Hamid was innocent:

Defense attorney Wazhma Mojaddidi challenged that conviction after one juror charged that other jurors bullied her into joining the unanimous guilty verdict.

Juror Arcelia Lopez, a Sacramento school nurse, accused the jury foreman Joe Cote of Folsom of making racial slurs about the Pakistani American defendant. In an interview, Cote stated that the jurors were fair and painstakingly careful in reaching their verdict.

In an affidavit obtained by the defense, Lopez said that four days before unanimous conviction, she “was the only person who felt that Hamid Hayat was not guilty based on the evidence.”

On the same day, Cote sent a note to Burrell stating, “There is impasse with a juror who does not seem to fully comprehend the deliberation process. I’m available to discuss this with you and counsel at any time.”

Burrell ordered the note sealed and instructed the jury to continue deliberations.

Mojaddidi’s push for a new trial based on juror misconduct was aided this week when Burrell revealed that an alternate juror said she had been contacted by Cote on April 20 and asked a question about Lopez…

<

p>New trials granted on the basis of juror misconduct are rare, even in cases in which one or more jurors claims undue pressure. Scott vowed to vigorously fight the move for a new trial. No date has yet been set to hear the motion for a new trial. [Link]

<

p>

<

p>

<

p>The Judge in Hamid’s case is considering dropping one of the charges because it seems like the U.S. Attorney may have piled on redundant charges:

Hamid Hayat, who has a sixth-grade education and was working at a cherry-packing shed when he was arrested, faces up to 39 years in prison when he is sentenced July 14. But Burrell is considering dropping one or more of the three convictions for lying because they could be redundant. Each of those charges carries a potential eight-year sentence. [Link]

I don’t know. “Terror” convictions seem like they should make us feel safer. This one just doesn’t feel like it has the right ingredients to make me feel any safer. I’ll keep following this story if it takes a new turn.