US : court maintains a Pakistani American’s terror conviction while rejecting his request for a fast trial

US: Umar Farooq Chaudhry, a dual US-Pakistani national who was charged with attempting to join violent jihad abroad, had his conviction affirmed by a US federal appeals court.

Chaudhry’s argument that the US government had infringed upon his constitutional right to a speedy trial was dismissed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The court determined that the lengthy postponement of his trial did not violate the Sixth Amendment.

In 2009, Chaudhry made a trip to Pakistan from the United States. According to court documents, he was a member of a gang that intended to go to Afghanistan in order to carry out jihad against US and coalition soldiers.

The gang was taken into custody by Pakistani officials in December 2009. Chaudhry was subsequently found guilty in Pakistan on charges pertaining to terrorism.

He received a ten-year jail term. In Pakistan, he completed his whole sentence.

Chaudhry was extradited to the US in December 2023 to face identical allegations after being freed.

Chaudhry filed a motion to have the charge dismissed after he was in US custody. He said that it took too long for the authorities to try him.

That argument was dismissed by a Virginia federal district court. After that, Chaudhry filed a conditional guilty plea while retaining the ability to challenge the question of a speedy trial.

The lengthy delay was acknowledged by the appeals court. The delay was seen as “presumptively prejudicial.”

However, the judges decided that Chaudhry was not favored by the other legal considerations.

The US government has good grounds for the delay, the court said. The extradition agreement between Pakistan and the United States was cited.

The court pointed out that extradition “shall not take place” under the treaty while a person is in Pakistan awaiting trial or serving a sentence.

The justices also pointed to other instances in which US demands for extradition to Pakistan were either denied or postponed. The court said that requests were often forgotten or disregarded.

The panel said that a previous request for extradition would probably have been pointless in light of this record.

According to the court, US authorities continued to make many attempts to ensure Chaudhry’s return. These included Interpol notifications, diplomatic outreach, arrest warrants, and criminal complaints.

Those actions were deemed “reasonably diligent” and undertaken in good faith by the judges.

Chaudhry was also criticized by the court for opposing extradition upon his 2020 release from jail.

It said that he battled extradition in Pakistani courts for over three years. The judges concluded that his actions demonstrated that he was not seeking a fast trial.

The court determined that there was no real prejudice.

According to Chaudhry, the delay damaged his defense and exposed him to the terrible circumstances in Pakistani prisons.

Those arguments were dismissed by the court. It claimed that the US government was not to blame for the jail conditions.

Additionally, it said that Chaudhry did not demonstrate how the delay affected his defense.

In the end, Chaudhry entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to provide material assistance to Jaish-e-Mohammed, a banned organization.

Prosecutors suggested time served and 20 years of supervised release as part of the plea deal. The agreement was approved by the district court.

The appeals court concluded that the delay was insufficient on its own.

The court maintained Chaudhry’s conviction since the other legal considerations were in his favor.