| Convicted of Seeking Sex
With 12 Year Old Waqar Is Denied Release
Amid Coronavirus
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
April 14 -- A man convicted of
seeking sex with what he was
told was a 12 year old girl,
and who repeatedly turned down
a five year minimum plea deal
offered by the U.S. Attorney
for the Southern District of
New York, was convicted by the
jury on September 11 of
attempted enticement of a
child.
SDNY Judge
Sidney H. Stein spared him
immediate remand to prison.
Waqar's lawyer tried to push
his sentencing into December
2019; Judge Stein only
accepted to November 26.
Now on April 14,
2020: "as to Muhammad Waqar.
After a three-day jury trial,
defendant Muhammad Waqar was
convicted of one count of
attempted enticement of a
minor to engage in sexual
activity in violation of 18
U.S.C § 2422(b). He was
sentenced to 120 months'
incarceration--the statutory
minimum for such a
conviction--and was remanded
to the custody of the Bureau
of Prisons (BOP). (ECF No.
83.) After sentencing, he
filed a notice of appeal,
challenging his conviction and
sentence. (ECF No. 85.) He
then moved for release from
custody pending appeal,
relying 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b).
(ECF No. 88.) Congress has
directed that defendants
convicted of certain serious
crimes--including the crime
for which Waqar was found
guilty--be detained. See 18
U.S.C. § 3143(b)(2); see also
id. § 3142(f)(1)(B). Despite
this strict mandate, a court
may release a defendant if he
"meets the conditions of
release set forth in section
3143(a)(1) or (b)(1)" and "it
is clearly shown that there
are exceptional reasons why
such person's detention would
not be appropriate." Id. §
3145(c). The Court denied the
motion because no such
exceptional reasons were
present. (ECF No. 98.) Waqar
now moves for reconsideration
of that order in light of "the
newly discovered unprecedented
threat of the COVID-19 virus."
(ECF No. 99, at 1.) The
government opposes the motion.
(ECF No. 100.) The Court held
a teleconference on the
motion, during which defense
counsel waived Waqar's
appearance. For the reasons
set forth below, the motion is
denied....[See this Opinion
& Order]... III.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons
discussed above, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Waqar's motion
for reconsideration is denied.
SO ORDERED: Signed by Judge
Sidney H. Stein on 4/14/2020)"
Back on
September 11, 2019 the
government argued for
immediate remand to detention,
even pending sentencing.
A senior
Assistant US Attorney showed
up in the back of the
courtroom on the bench next to
Inner City Press; he send
something by phone to the AUSA
at the front table. They
argued that remand was
mandatory under 18 USC
3143(2).
That
tracks to another section,
3142(f)(1)(B) which does seem
to make remand required for
cases involving possible life
sentences. But
SDNY Judge
Sidney H.
Stein,
helping Waqar's lawyer,
pointed to Section 3145,
allowing for release in
exceptional circumstances. And
what might those be?
Waqar has
been working in a Dunkin
Donuts. He has a wife and a
young child. The government
said these are not exceptional
circumstances. Judge Stein,
showing mercy, said that and
Waqar's heretofore justice
system-less life made the
case. He expedited sentencing,
and surrender, to October 23.
He emphasized to Waqar if he
tries to flee it will be
catestrophic. He left the
courtroom. More on Patreon here.
Out on the
23rd floor hallway, the San
Genaro festival on Mulberry
Street could be seen. Waqar
smiled; her relatives still
looked stern. The senior AUSA
was down on the 8th floor
using his cell phone to make
more plans. Inner City Press
returned to the SDNY Press
Room to write this story.
Waqar who
appeared for final pre-trial
motions on August 21 with
Inner City Press as throughout
the trial the only media in
the empty gallery of Judge
Stein's courtroom, had
interpretation headphones on
while his lawyer objected to
given the jury some of the
exhibits and aids the
government and Judge Stein
proposed.
The jury
asked for "all chats under
evidence" -- all parties
interpreted "under" as "is,"
as in, in evidence -- and also
for a PowerPoint that was not
in evidence. Waqar's lawyer
objected to this being sent
into the jury room, as he
objected to a laptop going in.
Judge Stein
told him to check the
government's laptop, before it
was carried out of the
courtroom by the US Attorney's
Office paralegal to print
photocopies, presumably on
their office on the fifth
floor of 500 Pearl Street.
The
defense lawyer said, "I
wouldn't know where to begin"
and said that was his point.
Judge Stein said that sending
in aids, and this laptop, were
within his discretion.
In the
gallery were at least seven of
the defendants family members
and friends, one of whom was
in military fatigues. Other
than them, and Inner City
Press, there was no one else
in the gallery. This is a
pedophilia case, but
apparently without the cache
of some other cases. Watch
this site.
On September 9
Waqar remained at the
defendant's table as his
lawyer helped pick jurors.
While nine stories beneath
Judge Jed Rakoff picked a jury
and held opening arguments all
in the morning, up in
Courtroom 23A jury selection
took until 2 pm. Whether slow
makes sure, time will tell.
Prospective jurors were asked
if they had been the victim of
a crime, and many had. Almost
none of the cases had been
solved. One woman, who got
excused, had initially been
accused of a subway bombing.
Another man who got excused
said he would only decide for
the prosecution if their case
was more than circumstantial.
He was nevertheless questioned
for a long time at sidebar.
Judge Stein took another case,
which Inner City Press could
not find in the day's calendar
on PACER, into his robing
room, with no provision for
press access. These are issues
we and @SDNYLIVE
hope to address going forward.
And now with the jury of 12
and two alternates selected,
Inner City Press will be
covering this trial.
The case,
as is too common, is full of
secrecy. Waqar's lawyer
Douglas G. Rankin back on
April 30 said he "wanted to
speak to the Court and to the
government off the record for
moment in regards to this
whole appeal mitigation
thing." This lead to: "The
next part should be recorded
but don't disclose it, in
other words it's, not to be
transcribed, unless requested
by the lawyers or the Court
right?" Seems wrong.
The case
is US v. Waqar, 18-cr-342
(SHS).
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold
Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
