There is clearly jury misconduct. My client should be entitled to a new trial.

The underlying allegations are really just the same, but relabeled. The government has been investigating my client since 2002. You would think that by this time they would be able to prove that he actually attended a terrorist camp. They haven't.

There is so much more than second thoughts in that affidavit.

The government has shown no evidence that he actually attended; the government has failed to prove its case. Ladies and gentlemen, you can't prove what never happened.

He was coerced into saying what he said. He thought he was cooperating and truly didn't know what he was getting himself into.

The court finds that it is necessary to grant (Moody) a new trial because it finds the jury misconduct undermined the integrity of the jury deliberations and public confidence in their verdict,