Eastern District of California Blog

U.S. Attorney's Office Drops Charges Against Hamid Hayat

Six months after a federal judge vacated the 2006 terrorism conviction against Hamid Hayat, prosecutors said Friday they will not pursue another trial against the former Lodi cherry picker.

“Due to the passage of time, the government now moves this court to dismiss, in the interest of justice, the indictments in this case,” federal prosecutors said in a motion filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento.

The decision brings to a close the controversial prosecution of Hayat, who spent 14 years of a 24-year sentence in custody until U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell found last year that his trial lawyer had provided ineffective counsel and he should be released pending a decision by the government on whether to retry him.

Sacramento Bee, 2/14/20

EDCA Magistrate Judge Recommends Overturning Hamid Hayat's So-Called Terrorism Conviction On IAC Grounds

Nearly 14 years after Hamid Hayat was convicted in a sensational terrorism trial in Sacramento and packed off to federal prison, a judge on Friday recommended that his conviction be vacated because of ineffective representation by his defense lawyer.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes issued a 116-page recommendation in Sacramento federal court saying that

Hayat’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the defense put on by an inexperienced lawyer who had never before selected a jury or tried a criminal case in federal court.

Barnes’ recommendation does not mean that Hayat, a former Lodi cherry picker who was arrested on terrorism-related charges along with his father in 2005, will necessarily go free.

Instead, her recommendation must now go before the trial judge who heard the case, U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr., for review.

Sac Bee, 1/11/19

Cleaning House

This weekend, I spent some time updating my blog, fixing broken criminal justice resource links and swapping out inactive blogs for more active ones.  

The blog's reference section now includes links to two excellent District of Oregon Federal Defender criminal defense resources, Developments in Federal Search & Seizure Law and Summaries of Successful Federal Habeas Cases.  

There is also a link to the Trump Con Law Blog.  The "Con" refers to "Constitutional," not "Convict" (at least not yet).

Days 3 & 4 of Hamid Hayat Evidentiary Hearing

Here's the Sacramento Bee's coverage of the testimony yesterday, Day 3, and today, day 4, from the Hamid Hayat § 2255 evidentiary hearing.  See also the SF Chronicle's overview.

Day Two of Hamid Hayat Evidentiary Hearing

The court fight over Hamid Hayat’s terror conviction is evolving into a reminder of the challenges Muslim Americans faced after the Sept. 11 attacks and the creation of the government’s secret “no-fly list.”

For the second consecutive day Tuesday, a witness from Lodi’s Muslim American community broke down on the witness stand in federal court while recalling how authorities blocked him from returning home to the United States.

* * *

 

Hayat’s lawyers maintain that while their client was in Pakistan from 2003 to 2004 arranging for his marriage, he was never out of sight of friends or family long enough to have gone to a terror training camp, as the government charges.

Ismail testified that he saw his friend virtually every day, and watched movies with him, played PlayStation games and gossiped about potential brides. Hayat was never gone more long enough to have traveled to a camp for training, Ismail said.

“That’s not possible at all,” he testified.

Sac Bee, 1/30/18

 

 

Evidentiary Hearing Starts on Hamid Hayat's Coerced Confession Claim

Launching an assault on the 2006 terror conviction of Lodi cherry picker Hamid Hayat, defense attorneys began playing video snippets of his recorded FBI interrogation in court Monday in a bid to show that Hayat was led into a false confession that sent him to prison for 24 years.

The video clips show Hayat, then 22, sitting in a windowless room as FBI interrogators make suggestions to him about what his “marching orders” were when he allegedly went to a Pakistani terror training camp in 2003, and suggesting to him how he would be contacted for instructions on launching an attack.

“There’s clearly weapons training, there’s explosives training,” an agent tells Hayat in one of the videos.

Defense attorneys are attempting to show that Hayat’s confession that he attended a terror training camp was the product of fatigue and of FBI agents persuading him to admit to something he didn’t do.

Sac Bee, 1/29/18

 

Ninth Circuit Reverses EDCA Court's Denial Of Habeas Relief in Sacramento Robbery-Murder

[In Weeden v. Johnson, No. 14-17366], a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel on Friday threw out the conviction of a teenage girl who prosecutors said played a key role in a 2005 Sacramento robbery-murder.

Sarah Weeden was 14 years old at the time of the Aug. 5, 2005, shooting death of Navnil Chand, who was 17. According to testimony at Weeden’s 2008 trial, she had agreed to meet Chand at Caymus Park for a date and directed him there by cellphone. When he arrived, a gunman identified as Sertice Melonson, then 23, waited to rob him. During the robbery, Melonson shot and killed Chand.

* * *

“We are just delighted for Sarah and her family,” said Charles M. Bonneau Jr., the Sacramento attorney who handled Weeden’s appeal. “She was just a little girl when all this happened, and we’re convinced she will ultimately be vindicated and released.” 

In an opinion issued Friday, the three-judge panel on a 2-1 vote granted Weeden a writ of habeas corpus on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Her lawyer was Michael G. Bowman, who is now a Sacramento Superior Court judge. Before he was appointed to the bench by Gov. Jerry Brown, Bowman had a reputation as one of the best defense lawyers in town.

Sac Bee, 4/21/17

My tough 6-5 Ninth Circuit en banc loss in wonky habeas jurisdiction case

Here is the Ninth Circuit en banc opinion in Nettles v. Grounds, No. 12-16935, which will be up on the Court's website later today.  It's a wonky, habeas jurisdiction case with broad implications.  A tough 6-5 loss for me.  Cert petition to follow. 

Rehearing En Banc Granted in Nettles v. Grounds

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit granted en banc review in Nettles v. Grounds, No. 12-16935.  It will be my first en banc oral argument, now scheduled for March 22, 3:30 p.m, in San Francisco.  The issue involves whether federal judges have habeas jurisdiction over California prisoner actions challenging disciplinary violations that would affect the inmate's parole eligibility date, but that would not necessarily result in the inmate's earlier release from prison.  (The Ninth Circuit denied a judge's sua sponte en banc call with respect to the consolidated appellant, Matta Santos in No. 13-15050). Here's my Petition for Rehearing En Banc. [Updated 1/29/16]

Seven Years Cut From Federal Sentence In Settlement After Denial of Public Trial

A man serving a 15-year prison sentence for conspiring to burn down his North Natomas restaurant had his convictions thrown out earlier this month on a rare argument: His trial was not actually public.

Sundeep Dharni, now 42, walked free because spectators, including some members of his family, were briefly excluded from the courtroom during at least part of jury selection to make room for an unusually large pool of prospective jurors.

* * *

n July 2014, a split three-judge circuit panel sent the case back to Sacramento for additions to be made to the record reflecting the scope of the courtroom closure, and for the lower court to decide “whether spectators had an opportunity to re-enter the courtroom during (jury selection), including whether seats in fact opened up and, if so, whether spectators would have been aware of the vacancies, and whether the district court and court officials would have allowed the spectators to enter” while jury selection was underway.

The parties agreed it would be next to impossible to come up with precise answers to the circuit’s questions about 7 1/2 -year-old events. Instead, in January Denvir and the prosecutor asked the circuit to let them find out whether the court in Sacramento would grant a motion by the government to dismiss Dharni’s convictions, conditioned upon Dharni’s acceptance of a plea agreement and a re-sentence to time served.

The circuit granted the request [here], which was signed for the government by Assistant U.S. Attorney Audrey Hemesath. 

“I’m gratified that the government would consider such a reasonable solution,” Denvir said in an interview. “Ms. Hemesath was a pleasure to work with. She listens to what you have to say and takes it seriously.”

Sac Bee, 10/31/15