Hamid and Umer Hayat

In 2019, a judge recommended their conviction be overturned, citing an ineffective legal defense for Hayat - who was defended by a lawyer that had never previously served in a criminal case in a federal court. The recommendation also cites a coerced confession obtained by the FBI, which one former agent described as the “sorriest confession” he had ever seen.

In 2019, Hamid Hayat's story was featured in Season 2 of Netflix's documentary series The Confession Tapes in an episode entitled "Marching Orders".

In February 2019 the U.S. Government dismissed all charges.

In a statement, Hayat’s legal team, led by Riordan & Horgan, said:

government today to dismiss the charges against him rather than seeking a retrial. That decision was obviously correct. Two federal judges have concluded that Hamid would not have been found guilty had the powerful evidence of his innocence that won his freedom in 2019 been presented to his jury in 2006.

charges of which he was innocent remain a grave miscarriage of justice. They serve as a stark example of how, in the post 9/11 era, the government’s effort to protect the public from terrorism could and did in this case go terribly wrong. Hamid’s exoneration is a cause for celebration, but the story of his case is tragedy that must not be repeated.”

After being locked up for more than 13 years in a Phoenix, Ariz., prison, Hayat was released in August 2019 after an order was filed by Senior United States District Judge Garland Burrell Jr. on July 30, 2019, to vacate Hayat’s conviction.

“When (my attorney) Dennis said ‘Hey, congratulations, it’s over!’ I didn’t believe it. Honestly, it was like a dream. Thank you to my family, CAIR-Sacramento, my legal team and my supporters for standing by me every step of the way.”

The Hamid Hayat case is seen as an example of a pre-crime conviction (McCulloch and Wilson 2016). The dissenting Judge Tashima in Hayat's unsuccessful appeal argued he would reverse the conviction "because the judicial branch's constitutional duty to do justice in criminal prosecutions was not fulfilled in this case in which the government asked a jury to deprive a man of his liberty largely based on dire, but vague, predictions that the defendant might commit unspecified crimes in the future" (United States v Hayat 2013: 4, 59, emphasis in original). Judge Tashima acknowledged that the law permitted conviction on the basis that the defendant might commit such unspecified crimes in the future, but argued that when the law allows for such convictions every aspect of the trial should be scrupulously fair, and that Hayat's trial did not meet this standard. The majority likewise described the government's "preventative approach" as "one that permits the conviction of potential terrorists who may never in fact have committed any terrorist act if not arrested and convicted" (United States v Hayat 2013: 24).

The hearing was held on April 6, 2007. On May 17, 2007, U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. rejected a new trial for Hamid Hayat, writing in his ruling that the reports of juror misconduct were not credible. Hamid Hayat's defense attorney, Wazhma Mojaddidi, announced plans to appeal.

On September 10, 2007, Hamid Hayat was sentenced to 24 years in federal prison. It was his 25th birthday. In the words of Federal Judge Garland Burrell Jr., Hayat had re-entered the U.S. "ready and willing to wage violent jihad."

In June 2005 Hamid Hayat was arrested and charged with providing material support to terrorists, and of lying about it to FBI agents. The prosecution alleged that Hamid Hayat had spent the better part of two years at an al-Qaeda training camp in Pakistan, returning in 2005 with an intent to attack civilian targets in the United States. The defense contended that Hayat was in Pakistan to engage an arranged marriage. On April 25, 2006, a jury voted to convict Hamid Hayat of one count of providing material support or resources to terrorists and three counts of making false statements to the FBI in matters related to international or domestic terrorism. The maximum penalty for these charges is 39 years of imprisonment. Sentencing was set for July 14, 2006, before U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.

After his initial conviction Hamid Hayat sought a new trial, for which his attorneys, Wazhma Mojaddidi and Dennis Riordan, filed a motion on the grounds of misconduct by jury foreman Joseph Cote as well as other court misconduct. Cote allegedly used racial slurs during the trial and compared Hayat to the Pakistani men who had conducted the recent terrorist attacks in London (see 7 July 2005 London bombings and 21 July 2005 London bombings). Cote also contacted an excused alternative juror during deliberations.

Previously, on April 19, 2003, father and son had been stopped at Dulles International Airport on the way to Pakistan. They were attempting to illegally carry $28,093 in cash out of the country. According to the defense, this was money they had saved to build a vacation home in Pakistan and to pay for Hamid's wedding and the wedding of his sister.

Hamid Hayat (born September 10, 1983) is a United States citizen of Pakistani descent from Lodi, California. His father, Umer Hayat (born January 5, 1958), was born in Pakistan and emigrated to the United States in 1976; he is a naturalized American citizen. Together they were the subjects of the first terrorism trial in the state of California. Both were alleged to be part of, or associated with, a terrorist sleeper cell.

Much was made of how Umer Hayat seemed to possess sums of cash unusual for an ice-cream-truck driver with only an 8th grade education (e.g. a $390,000 home with no outstanding debt). According to U.S. District Court Judge Garland Burrell, Hayat "appears to have access to a significant amount of cash from an unexplained source."