Source: https://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/evidence/national-security-prosecutions-and-graymail.html
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 19:12:14
Document Index: 773676405

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 92', 'Art. 92', 'Art. 106', 'Art. 134', 'Art. 104', 'Art. 106', 'Art. 92']

National Security prosecutions and graymail -
National Security prosecutions and graymail
Overview of national security prosecutions and graymail (see Classified evidence in a court martial):
“Graymail” occurs when a criminal defendant, whether for legitimate reasons or otherwise, threatens to disclose classified information during the course of a trial hoping
that the government will forego prosecution rather than see the information disclosed.
There are two competing values at play in every prosecution involving classified or national security information:
The accused’s right to a fair trial;
The government’s need to protect from disclosure national security information that might be required for the trial.
Classified information is potentially relevant at trial under three primary circumstances:
The charges are related to the improper handling of classified information.
Examples of such charges include the following:
Art. 92, Failure to Obey Order or Regulation. This would apply to
instances of mishandling classified information. See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t of
Army, Reg. 380-5, Department of the Army Information Security
Program para. 1-21 (29 Sep. 2000).
Art. 92, Dereliction of Duty.
Art. 106a, Espionage.
Art. 134, The General Article. Would pertain to violations of federal
statutes not specifically contained in the UCMJ. For examples of these
statutes and sample specifications, see U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, Office of
the Judge Advocate General, National Security and Intelligence Law
Division (Code 17), The Judge Advocate’s Handbook for Litigating
National Security Cases: Prosecuting, Defending and Adjudicating
National Security Cases, Chapter 8 (2002) [hereinafter Code 17
Art. 104, Aiding the Enemy.
Art. 106, Spies.
The classified information may be essential in establishing an element of or
defense to a charge or specification. For instance, in United States v. Schmidt, 60
M.J. 1 (2004), the appellant was charged with dereliction of duty for failing to
exercise appropriate flight discipline and to comply with rules of engagement and
special instructions in an air-to-ground bombing incident that caused the deaths
of several Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. The appellant was privy to
classified information pertaining to his case. The military judge ruled, and the
Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, that the appellant could not
discuss the classified aspects of his case with his civilian defense counsel (who
eventually obtained an interim security clearance) without submitting a request
through the trial counsel. The CAAF vacated the AFCCA opinion and reversed
the ruling of the military judge, holding that MRE 505 does not require an
accused to engage in adversarial litigation with the government as a precondition
to discussing potentially relevant information pertaining to the case that is
already in the appellant’s knowledge or possession.
Art. 92, Dereliction of Duty