Rana seeks another hearing; documents reveal he is innocent

Chicago: Tahawwur Hussain Rana, who was recently convicted of providing support to terrorism in the Denmark plot and to LeT with co-accused David Coleman Headley, has asked the judge to conduct another hearing in his case.

Rana, through his attorney Patrick W Blegen, has requested Judge Harry D Leinenweber to conduct a ‘Franks hearing’ in which the statements made by police officers in an affidavit that was used to obtain a search warrant in which evidence incriminated him are false and constitute perjury or reckless disregard for truth.

Rana’s residence was searched based on statements made by Headley and those statements are not credible, the documents state. So Rana’s house was not searched based on true evidence.

Because of the omissions, the magistrate judge reviewing the affidavit was left entirely unaware of evidence exculpating Rana.

Moreover, the government’s own qualms about Headley’s credibility were also hidden, the documents say. Whether a witness is credible is an independent consideration for the magistrate.

Veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are extremely relevant factors in deciding whether a tip can support probable cause. The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence.

Its protection consists in  requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. By omitting all references to Headley’s exculpatory statements regarding Rana, the affidavit denied Rana the protection of a neutral magistrate’s determination whether, as a  whole, the evidence was sufficient to amount to probable cause.

Moreover, a recently released document revealed that Tahawwur Hussain Rana was unaware of the terror activities of Mumbai-attack accused David Headley and had provided cover and funds to him unknowingly. The documents which were ordered to be unsealed by Judge Harry Leinenweber on 19 July at the request of Chicago Tribune newspaper reveal that Headley had explicitly told the gents that Rana was not aware of his activities and he did not knowingly allow him to use his business as cover.

It contradicts the affidavit filed in trial of Headley’s statements regarding Rana that he knowingly provided cover and funds in support of terrorism.

Moreover, Headley also gave explanation for Rana procuring airline tickets for him as ‘Rana was simply repaying a loan’. A lack of knowledge regarding Headley’s true activities and a non-terrorism reason for Rana paying for airline tickets undercuts the only tangible elements that would link the Rana to either providing or conspiring to provide material support to terrorism.

Headley’s exculpatory statements regarding Rana cut against the government’s case for probable cause in two significant ways.

First, the statements provide straightforward evidence indicating that there was not probable cause to search Rana’s home and businesses. According to Headley, Rana was innocent. Second, assuming the government did not believe Headley’s statement about Rana, the statements undercut all of his other statements that were used to support probable cause, the documents state.

The omission of the exculpatory statements altogether avoids the obvious awkward situation, asking the magistrate to credit and discredit Headley’s statements all at the same time.

PTI