jump to navigation

Results for Shiraz’s Trial January 30, 2007

Posted by faketerror in Shiraz Syed Qazi.

During the first part of the case, Shiraz and his attorney waived the right for a jury before the judge. The judge verified with both and the lawyer explained the reason to the judge. The main reason for waving it was that if Shiraz was found guilty by the jury the sentence would be much tougher.

The US Government accused Shiraz of possessing a firearm during the camping trip for 3 days while he was under his student visa. They presented pictures of him holding the gun, which he did not deny.

In the end, the judge issued the verdict that he is GUILTY and that his sentencing would be held on May 17, 2007. Until then the court would investigate this issue and get more information.

After the hearing Ali Khalil, an official from CAIR Houston, who attended the hearing, investigated more with Shiraz’s attorney, Mr. Brent Newton, about the case. The attorney said that this is how it usually goes and during the time before the sentencing they will present all the evidence. When asked how long his sentence may be he said maybe a few months to a year. 6 months will already have been served in May. But after he is let go the immigration authorities will probably arrest him.

The CAIR official was also interview by Cindy George, who also attended the hearing, from the Houston Chronicle. He explained that these friends were at the wrong place at the wrong time. The law that they are charged with was not well known by anyone, even attorneys didn’t know it. He told that if the government enacts a law like this, they have the responsibility to make it public and inform the community leaders to announce it. They shouldn’t be held responsible for a law that is just on the papers and everyone is ignorant about it.

We pray for the quick release of Shiraz and the other Muslims who have been accused by the government.

You can read this article in the Houston Chronicle regarding this hearing: Pakistani found guilty of gun charge.

Also read this from Tom Kirkendall’s blog (Houston based attorney): Expensive Target Practice (related to this case). It also has links to the actual “motion to dismiss” and the “prosecutor’s response” documents for Shiraz’s case.



1. ok - January 31, 2007

With an attitude that I am going to lose, they chose a trial by judge.

Always choose a trial by Jury. I thought every attorney knew this.

Trust in Allah, AND try your utmost best. Never give up in Allah. Allah can do all things. He protected Abraham from the fire. He rescued Moses from the river. He made Joesph in charge of the country. He gave the might to David to kill Goliath…

Will you not turn to Allah? Allah is Perfect. He has no son or partner.

2. Fawaz Qazi - January 31, 2007

The Jury trial is of no use in these cases. Before the trial the jury is given a fact-list and are specifically told that if the person is proven by ‘historical facts’ they have no option than to pronounce him guilty and the punishment in that case is much severe. Against Shiraz, they don’t actually have any conspiracy charge. The charge “holding a weapon” cannot be denied. the only arguement is that the law in these case was changed after 1998 and even many immigration attorneys dont have any idea that this existed. so having a jury would have been just a waste of time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: