US v. Chaudhry: In 2009, Chaudhry (a native of Pakistan who came to the United States as a child) and four others intended to go to Afghanistan to fight against US and allied forces. Before leaving, they created a “final message” video laying out their reason for waging jihad in this way. They left for Pakistan (from which they would cross into Afghanistan) where they were arrested. Questioned by the FBI two days later, Chaudhry adopted everything said in the video and explained that they “came for the sake of Islam to work with the Muslims.” A complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia charging Chaudhry with providing material support to terrorists, but he was also charged, convicted, and sentenced in Pakistan. Charges in the US lingered until that sentence was completed. Chaudhry was extradited December 2023 and arraigned on an indictment a week later. After Chaudhry unsuccessfully sought to dismiss the indictment as untimely, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to time served, to be followed by 20 years of supervised release.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Chaudhry’s conviction. Noting that his speedy trial challenge was made under the Sixth Amendment, not the Speedy Trial Act, the court concluded that the relevant factors did not fall in his favor. While the delay in him facing charges in the US did work in Chaudhry’s favor, the other factors did not. Particularly, the Government had made conscientious attempts to bring Chaudhry back to the US for years and Chaudhry did not assert any kind of speedy trial right until months after he was returned to the US.
No comments:
Post a Comment