Mohanad Hammadi

Attorneys awaiting a ruling on whether an Iraqi refugee’s life sentence for terrorism-related crimes in Bowling Green will be overturned have filed documents arguing their respective cases.

Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, 28, has been incarcerated since his 2011 arrest on allegations that he attempted to provide money and weapons to terrorists in Iraq while he lived in Bowling Green. 

Hammadi pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court to all charges in a 12-count indictment and was sentenced to life in prison, but has since moved to have his sentence vacated on the grounds that his court-appointed lawyer, James Earhart, provided ineffective assistance.

A hearing was held in June in Louisville on the motion, which was filed on Hammadi’s behalf by his current attorney, Patrick Renn.

At the hearing, Hammadi testified that he pleaded guilty based on advice from Earhart that he would not receive a life sentence if he were to enter a guilty plea and cooperate with the federal government, with the possibility of receiving a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence of a lesser punishment.

Hammadi pleaded guilty without reaching a written agreement from federal prosecutors, who later told the court that they did not move to have Hammadi’s sentence reduced because he provided little information of value to the government about terrorist operations against U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

“It was Hammadi’s understanding that he was not going to get a sentence of life imprisonment and potentially less than 25 years based on the advice he was given by Earhart,” Renn wrote in a memorandum filed in August supporting the motion to vacate Hammadi’s sentence. “Hammadi knew he was facing a mandatory minimum 25 years imprisonment. Earhart told him he could plead guilty and get less than 25 years, and it might be 20. That is the reason Hammadi agreed to plead guilty. Hammadi did not get the benefit of cooperating with the government before he entered his plea of guilty.”

Among a number of arguments he made in the 37-page memorandum, Renn argues that Hammadi was falsely advised by his attorney that the government promised to recommend a sentence of less than life imprisonment if he cooperated, meeting with federal agents on three occasions to provide information with the apparent understanding he would get a reduction in his sentence.

Renn claimed in his filing that Hammadi “provided significant and substantial information to the government about his actions, as well as others” during interviews with the government, but Earhart failed to enter FBI reports of those interviews into evidence at the sentencing hearing in 2013 to rebut prosecutors’ claims that Hammadi offered little information of value.

Hammadi also contends that Earhart failed to investigate available evidence or interview witnesses who could have been helpful to his defense during the trial preparation phase, testifying at the June hearing that he and his attorney did not discuss that aspect of trial strategy.

Renn argues in his filing that a number of witnesses, including Hammadi’s co-defendant, Waad Alwan, could have testified that Hammadi was not predisposed to commit any criminal offense in the U.S. and that Hammadi did not have any money.

In his filing, Renn asserts that Hammadi lacked ample time to view the government’s evidence against him ahead of trial, and that he “felt abandoned by (Earhart)” when he began to seek an appeal of his sentence.

Government rebuts Hammadi’s claims

In a 42-page response filed Wednesday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Terry Cushing counters Renn’s arguments about Earhart’s ineffectiveness.

Earhart had testified in June that he believed Hammadi had little information to offer the government and that Hammadi would have little chance of success at trial, advising Hammadi that the best chance of avoiding a life sentence would be to plead guilty, even without an agreement, according to Cushing.

“Earhart testified that he did not advise Hammadi that he would not get life,” Cushing wrote. “He told Hammadi that Hammadi’s best chance of not getting life was to plead guilty. He didn’t believe Hammadi would get life if he pled guilty, but he did not tell him he would not.”

While Renn argued that Earhart should have entered evidence in an attempt to prove Hammadi cooperated with federal authorities to the extent that he warranted a sentence reduction, Cushing characterized Hammadi’s meetings with the government as unproductive.

“In his meetings with the United States, Hammadi made excuses for his conduct and was obstructive rather than being helpful, facts Earhart reasonably avoided by not calling agents to testify at the sentencing,” Cushing wrote, adding that it remains possible for the government to move for a sentence reduction should Hammadi provide substantial assistance to federal authorities.

The information contained in the FBI reports would not have given a judge any guidance as to how valuable it was to the government, according to Cushing.

Alwan, who is serving a 40-year sentence for terror-related offenses committed with Hammadi, would not have been helpful to Hammadi as a witness, so it was reasonable for Earhart not to rely on Alwan as a defense witness, Cushing stated. Other witnesses would not have known about Hammadi’s prior terror activities in Iraq and their testimony would ultimately have been unhelpful, Cushing argued.

On Friday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Brent Brennenstuhl set an Oct. 14 deadline for Renn to file a reply to Cushing’s memorandum.

Alwan, meanwhile filed a motion on Sept. 22 requesting the government provide him with copies of discovery evidence that his attorney received prior to his sentencing.

Alwan indicates in his motion that he wants access to the complete case file so that he may prepare a subsequent motion in which he will argue that he had ineffective assistance of counsel.

— Follow courts reporter Justin Story on Twitter @jstorydailynews or visit bgdailynews.com.