11th Circuit likely to toss $6M award to Miami man wrongfully accused of terrorism

ATLANTA (CN) — An 11th Circuit panel appeared likely on Friday to overturn a Florida federal judge’s award of $6.2 million in damages to a Pakistani-born man who was held in solitary confinement for nearly a year before terrorism charges against him were dropped.

Pakistani-born U.S. citizen Irfan Khan was arrested in May 2011 on charges of providing material support to the Pakistani Taliban. Khan, who had no prior criminal history, spent 317 days in custody, lost about 50 pounds and underwent 159 strip searches.

The charges were abruptly dropped, and Khan was released. He said the experience left him with post-traumatic stress disorder.

A Florida federal judge ruled in 2024 that the government was liable for maliciously prosecuting Khan. Chief U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga found Khan “suffered considerably” during and after the ordeal.

On Friday, a Justice Department attorney asked a three-judge appeals panel to overturn the damages award and Altonaga’s finding of liability. Attorney Sarah Smith said prosecutors were justified in charging Khan based on information from FBI agents, even if it later proved incorrect.

“The government here did the right thing in that when it had probable cause that a serious crime was being committed, it investigated. But when it made the determination it couldn’t prevail at trial, it dropped charges,” Smith said. “That’s what we want the government to do.”

Altonaga ruled law enforcement officers can be liable for malicious prosecution if they played a “key role” and took an active part in the prosecution.

Two of the three judges on the panel signaled their eagerness to overturn the decision.

U.S. Circuit Judge Britt Grant, a Trump appointee, appeared to agree with Smith, questioning whether FBI agents are obligated to fully investigate before seeking an indictment “so [the case] can be presented to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Fellow Trump-appointed U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa went further, saying, “No one misled or misrepresented anything. It was a poorly-done investigation but that doesn’t necessarily mean as a matter of law that [the agents] were the legal cause of the ultimate prosecution.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Nancy Abudu appeared to be the only member of Friday’s panel opposed to overturning the ruling. The Joe Biden appointee said the appeals court was bound to defer to Altonaga’s “pretty thorough” findings “unless we can say without any hesitation that they were wrong.”

Arguing for Khan, attorney David Luck of Morgan & Morgan said Altonaga correctly found the prosecution lacked probable cause. He said the FBI based its accusations on inaccurate information and faulty translations.

According to Khan’s attorneys, the government secured an indictment from a grand jury based in part on phone calls in which his father called for terrorist attacks and on four money transfers Khan sent to relatives in Pakistan.

In one instance, investigators did not immediately verify the identity of a money transfer recipient who shared a name with a Taliban commander but turned out to be a relative with whom Khan’s wife was staying while attending a wedding in Pakistan.

The lower court found the government lacked probable cause to believe the money transfers were part of a conspiracy to aid the Taliban or that Khan participated in calls for attacks on Pakistani officials.

Khan’s father, Hafiz Muhammed Sher Ali Khan, was convicted in 2013 of providing material support to terrorists and sentenced to 25 years in prison. He was later released for humanitarian reasons.

“There was no information ever in any [phone] call, ever, that our client agreed to send any money to any member of the Taliban, agreed to any attack, agreed to support terrorism whatsoever,” Luck said.

Smith admitted “subtle changes” in the translation of phone transcripts led the government to drop the charges against Khan.

Smith also argued Altonaga was wrong in ruling that the FBI agents who investigated Khan and testified before the grand jury were the legal cause of his prosecution.

“FBI special agents presented all the evidence they gathered to the prosecutor and the prosecutor made an independent decision that there was probable cause,” Smith said. “That independent decision insulates the officers from liability as a matter of law.”

Abudu said the evidence given to prosecutors by FBI agents was “the basis upon which the prosecution decided to proceed” and questioned whether the “completeness” of that evidence should be considered.

“The failure to do a thorough investigation, coupled with the presentation of a person as Taliban [affiliated], how is that not misleading in any way and a misrepresentation that could’ve been prevented by a more thorough investigation?” Abudu asked.

The panel did not indicate when a decision will issue in the appeal.

Follow @KaylaGoggin_CNS