Here's the first three paragraphs from the opinion piece by Stanford law professors Shirin Sinnar and Robert Weisberg in the Mercury News, 7/18/14:
Eight years ago, a jury found Hamid Hayat, a 23-year-old former cherry picker from Lodi, guilty in California's first big terrorism trial. The case made national headlines. "Justice has been served," then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales declared.
But the facts suggest a much different story -- not of justice served but of an innocent man unjustly imprisoned. A new habeas petition makes a compelling case that Hayat was convicted because an overzealous prosecution sought a conviction at all costs, and an inexperienced defense lawyer failed to marshal the evidence to acquit him.
Hayat's petition for a new trial makes a persuasive case that his trial lawyer, though well-intentioned, failed to adequately investigate the case and present exculpatory evidence. But this raises a much deeper question about our government's responsibility to seek justice when it prosecutes on our behalf.