United States v. Hayat
710 F.3d 875
9th Cir.2013Background
- Hamid Hayat, a U.S. citizen born in 1983, was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2339A and § 1001.
- Prosecution alleged Hayat provided material support to terrorists by attending camps in Pakistan and awaiting orders.
- Evidence included seven recorded conversations with informant Naseem Khan and Hayat’s FBI interviews.
- A note in Arabic found in Hayat’s wallet was translated by an government Islamic studies expert.
- Hayat presented a ta’wiz defense via Anita Weiss and challenged the government’s expert testimony.
- Hayat’s trial occurred in 2006, he was sentenced to 24 years, and he timely appealed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror bias of the foreperson | Hayat argues foreperson Cote was actually biased | Cote provided nonbiased explanations for his conduct | No clear error; no actual bias established |
| Cross-examination of key witness Khan | District court limited Hayat’s cross-examination unconstitutionally | Limitations were proper; cross-examination adequate | No plain error; limits upheld |
| Admissibility of expert and defense testimony | Government experts admissible; defense expert improperly excluded | Defense experts should have been allowed; 704(b) concerns raised | District court did not abuse discretion; government expert admitted; some defense testimony excluded; no reversible error on balance |
| Classified information and discovery under CIPA | Defense needs classified info to cross-examine Khan | Material not helpful; limits proper | District court did not err in limiting discovery under CIPA |
| § 2255 dismissal jurisdiction on appeal | Appeal should review district court’s § 2255 dismissal | Appeal jurisdiction lacking; dismissal affirmed | Court lacks jurisdiction to review the § 2255 dismissal on this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973) (due process requires reliable exculpatory evidence when essential to a defense)
- Chia v. Cambra, 360 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2004) (limits of admissibility of some hearsay evidence; complete defense concerns)
- Dyer v. Calderon, No citation provided in text (9th Cir. 1998) (juror bias rule not harmless; requires new trial)
- Henley, 238 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2001) (voir dire bias, impeaching juror testimony)
- Lopez-Alvarez v. United States, 970 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1992) (confrontation and cross-examination limits; due process considerations)
- Younger v. United States, 398 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2005) (704(b) expert testimony limits; модус operandi reasoning)
- Morales v. United States, 108 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 1997) (limiting scope of expert testimony; ultimate issue rule)
- Wash. Water Power Co. v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 793 F.2d 1079 (9th Cir. 1986) (Hillmon doctrine admissibility of prior statements tending to intent)