This artist drawing shows terror probe defendant Umer Hayat, right, and his attorney Johnny Griffin III, left, listening as U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell, background, polls the jury at the federal courthouse in Sacramento on Tuesday. (Courtesy photo)

DEADLOCKED!

Umer Hayat's jurors can't reach verdict; judge declares mistrial

Jurors could not reach verdicts and a federal judge declared a mistrial Tuesday morning in the trial of a Lodi ice cream truck driver charged with lying to the FBI during a terrorism investigation.

Umer Hayat's mistrial happened mere hours before a separate jury convicted his son, Hamid Hayat, of all four terror-related charges he had faced.

Jurors debating the case against Umer Hayat had "deliberated every piece of direct and indirect evidence in this case" and were "decisively deadlocked," Woodbridge jury forewoman Debra Kiriu wrote in a 10 a.m. note to the judge.

Umer Hayat, 48, will remain jailed until a Friday morning bail hearing. The judge scheduled a May 5 status conference, where prosecutors are expected to announce whether they will again try him on two counts of lying to FBI agents.

Umer Hayat's jury of eight men and four women left the courthouse out a back door without talking to reporters, walking with marshals to their parked cars. Following a nine-week trial, they had spent eight days in deliberations before they deadlocked and said they could not reach a unanimous decision.

Contacted later at her home in Woodbridge, she said it was a matter of evidence.

"It doesn't matter whether Mr. Umer Hayat was guilty or not guilty," Kiriu said. "There was not enough evidence either way for anybody to be 100 percent sure on this case."

Kiriu added that jurors took three formal votes throughout the process, and came up with a stalemate each time.

Umer Hayat's family had been waiting for word of a decision in the case, and his 17-year-old son, Arslan Hayat, said he hoped his dad would be coming home soon.

"He wasn't guilty like I told you guys. The jury didn't find him guilty," he told a crowd of reporters. "He's gonna be home and we want him back."

Defense attorney Johnny Griffin III said outside court that Umer Hayat "just wants to go home" and repeated what he has said since June: "It's been our position from day one that Umer Hayat is not a terrorist."

In a written statement, U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott thanked the jury for its "hard work and dedication over the past several weeks" and said the government will decide by May 5 what to do with the case.

Umer Hayat was arrested after hours of interviews with the FBI last June. Agents testified at trial that they had never even planned to interview him but decided to speak with him after he accompanied his son to the FBI office in Sacramento.

Agents had been more interested in Hamid Hayat, whose name was on a no-fly list and triggered an alert when he flew from Pakistan back to Lodi late last May.

The younger Hayat was charged with three counts of making false statements and one count of providing material support to terrorists. His father was charged with two counts of making false statements to the FBI.

In his videotaped interview, which was played during trial and again during deliberations at the request of the jury, Umer Hayat described a camp involving masked men learning to pole-vault in a basement. That description did not match any camp Hamid Hayat attempted to describe, though the juries didn't know that.

At 10 a.m., Umer Hayat's jury sent their last note to U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr., who summoned attorneys to his 13th-floor courtroom.

A day earlier, the jury of six men and six women had sent a note to the judge saying they could not reach verdicts, so Burrell had instructed them to continue deliberating.

The jury returned at 9 a.m. Tuesday, but remained deadlocked.

They filed into the courtroom, and the clerk then polled each juror to ask if any further deliberation might help them reach a decision. Each one responded with a firm, "No."

The judge then thanked them and then, in a move that is not required of judges, told the jurors that if they spoke about the case, it could cause a "chilling effect" on the jury system.

News-Sentinel staff writer Sara Cardine contributed to this report.

Contact reporter Layla Bohm at layla@lodinews.com.

First published: Wednesday, April 26, 2006