1 Although standby counsel objected to the absence of the

defendant from this hearing, consistent with our Order of August

23, 2002, which denied Mr. Moussaoui access to classified

information, he was not present at the hearing.

2 On September 26, 2002, standby counsel’s Motion to Unseal

was granted in part as to counsel’s request to unseal

correspondence, pleadings and orders concerning the inadvertent

production of classified materials to the defendant. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) Criminal No. 01-455-A

)

ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI )

a/k/a “Shaqil,” )

a/k/a “Abu Khalid )

al Sahrawi,” )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

For the reasons stated on the record during a closed hearing

held on October 2, 2002, pursuant to the Classified Information

Procedures Act, 18 U.S.C. App. 3,1 standby counsel’s motion to

unseal, docketed as #543, is DENIED, as is the previously

unresolved request in standby counsel’s motion to unseal,

docketed as #500.2 

Given the continuance granted by our Order of September 30,

2002, the defendant’s pro se motions docketed as #s 491 and 537,

and standby counsel’s motions docketed as 488, 494 and 542 will

not be addressed at this time. That same Order also effectively

granted the United States’ request for additional time to respond

to certain of these motions (Docket #580). 

To avoid the inadvertent disclosure of classified
3 If standby counsel are unsure about the propriety of

planned discussions with the defendant or a potential witness,

they should consult with the designated classification specialist

for guidance as to what communications may be made without

disclosing classified information.

2

information to the defendant and/or the public; it is hereby 

ORDERED that the parties comply with the following procedure

when preparing and filing pleadings in this case:

• Before filing any pleading with the court or sharing any

proposed pleading with the pro se defendant, standby counsel

must present such proposed pleading to the Court Security

Officers for submission to a designated classification

specialist who is to be “walled off” from all attorneys and

investigators on the prosecution “team.”3 

• Within 48 hours, the classification specialist must advise

standby counsel in writing (through the Court Security

Officers) whether or not the pleading contains any

classified information. If the pleading does contain

classified information, the classification specialist must

appropriately “portion-mark” the proposed pleading before

returning it to standby counsel. See Exec. Order No. 12958

(1995). If the proposed pleading does not contain

classified information, the pleading must be returned

unmarked to standby counsel.

• In exceptional cases, if the classification specialist needs

more than 48 hours to review a proposed pleading, standby

counsel must be notified of, and provided with an

explanation for, the delay.

• Standby counsel may not share any proposed pleading with the

defendant until it has been reviewed by the designated

classification specialist. If portions of a pleading are

classified, only a redacted version may be shown to the

defendant. If the entire pleading is classified, standby

counsel may not share it with the defendant. 

• The United States is required to submit its pleadings for a

similar review to its own classification specialists before

filing them with the court.

• Any pleading containing classified information may not be

filed with the Clerk of Court; instead, it must be filed

with the Court Security Officers. If the entire pleading is
4 Unless the United States intends for a pleading containing

some classified information to be ex parte, a redacted,

unclassified version must be served on the defendant.

3

classified, the Court Security Officers will maintain that

pleading under seal. If only portions of a pleading are

classified, unless the pleading is intended to be filed ex

parte and/or under seal, the Court Security Officers are to

maintain the original, unredacted pleading under seal and

publicly file a redacted version of the pleading with the

Clerk of Court.4

At the conclusion of the closed hearing, counsel for the

United States orally moved to unseal the portion of the

transcript concerning the applicability of Local Rule 57 to the

parties and counsel. Because we find the request to be

reasonable, the United States’ oral motion is GRANTED; and it is

hereby 

ORDERED that, once the transcript is prepared and filed

under seal with the Court Security Officers, the portion of the

transcript regarding the applicability of Local Rule 57 to the

parties and counsel be unsealed with any redactions necessary to

protect classified information.

The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Order to the

defendant, pro se; counsel for the United States; standby defense 

counsel; and the Court Security Officers.

Entered this 3rd day of October, 2002.

/s/

_________________________________

Leonie M. Brinkema

Alexandria, Virginia United States District Judge