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

Before the Court is Intervenors’ Motion for Access to

Certain Portions of the Record (Docket #514), in which they

request a modification of our Order of August 29, 2002 regarding

the sealing of the defendant’s pro se pleadings. Intervenors

argue that the Order is broader than necessary to protect the

Government’s legitimate interest in limiting the defendant’s

ability to communicate with co-conspirators or sympathizers. 

Specifically, the intervenors suggest that the defendant’s pro se

pleadings be provisionally sealed for a maximum of ten days, and

thereafter placed in the public record unless the government

satisfies the Court that compelling interests justify maintaining 

the pleadings under seal. 

In response, the United States insists that maintaining all

of the defendant’s pro se pleadings under seal is the least

restrictive means of ensuring that he does not communicate coded

messages to the outside world. Rather than adopt the

intervenors’ proposed modification of our Order of August 29,
2

2002, the United States suggests that we direct the Clerk of

Court not to file any of Mr. Moussaoui’s pleadings “containing

threats, racial slurs, calls to action, attempts to communicate

messages to someone other than this Court, or other irrelevant or

inappropriate language.” 

Sealing records or portions thereof in criminal cases is

justified only if such an accommodation is narrowly tailored to

serve compelling interests. See Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior

Court, 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984); In re Knight Publishing Co., 743

F.2d 231, 234 (4th Cir. 1984). In our view, the United States’

proposal does not properly balance the defendant’s right to seek

appropriate judicial relief against the public’s right to access

records in criminal cases and the United States’ legitimate

concerns about the defendant’s efforts to communicate with the

outside world. See In re Washington Post Co., 807 F.2d 383, 392

(4th Cir. 1986); In re Knight Publishing Co., 743 F.2d at 234. 

In light of the defendant’s admitted membership in al Qaeda,

repeated pledges of allegiance to Osama bin Laden and prayers for

the destruction of the United States, we find the United States’

concerns about the defendant’s efforts to communicate messages to

his “people” through his court filings to be legitimate. 

However, since we issued our Order of August 29, 2002, the

defendant has filed fewer pleadings and has significantly toned

down his inappropriate rhetoric. We, therefore, find that the
3

administrative burden on the United States of identifying and

redacting problematic language from the defendant’s pro se

filings no longer justifies a total sealing of all of the

defendant’s pleadings. 

Because the Court is not qualified to determine whether the

defendant is attempting to send messages to sympathizers or

otherwise improperly communicate with the outside world, we must

rely on the Government and its intelligence community to identify

language in the defendant’s pro se pleadings that might endanger

national security. Unless there is a compelling reason to

conclude otherwise, we will defer to the Government’s expertise

on this issue. Accordingly, the Intervenors’ Motion for Access

to Certain Portions of the Record (Docket #514) is GRANTED; and

it is hereby 

ORDERED that our Order of August 29, 2002 be and is modified

to the following extent: All of the defendant’s pro se pleadings

will continue to be initially filed under seal. The United

States will have ten days from the date a pleading is filed to

advise the Court in writing whether the pleading should remain

under seal or be unsealed with or without redactions. If it

requests redactions, the United States need only submit a copy of

the pro se pleading marked with the proposed redactions along

with a brief written explanation of the reasons for the proposed

redactions. If the United States does not so advise the Court,
1 The Court will also conduct its own review of the

defendant’s pro se pleadings, and will redact any insulting,

threatening or inflammatory language which would not be tolerated

from an attorney practicing in this court. Should the

defendant’s pleadings again become replete with inappropriate

rhetoric, we will return to categorical sealing. 

4

the pleading at issue will be unsealed without redaction;1 and it

is further 

ORDERED that counsel for the United States advise the Court

in writing by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 7, 2002 of its

position as to the unsealing or redaction of the defendant’s

pleadings docketed as #s 467, 469, 470, 471, 472, 491, 497, 498,

536, 537, 570 and 577. 

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

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

counsel; and counsel for the intervenors.

Entered this 27th day of September, 2002.

/s/

_________________________________

Leonie M. Brinkema

United States District Judge

Alexandria, Virginia