Opinion ID: 3066075
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the substitution

Text: The government acknowledged in advance of trial that it had classified information that was helpful to Seda’s defense. The government proposed, and the court authorized, the following unclassified summary of classified material responsive to Seda’s discovery requests: 34 UNITED STATES V. SEDAGHATY The U.S. Government obtained information that Sami ‘Abd Al ‘Aziz Al-Sanad worked during 2000 and 2001 for the Al-Haramain organization and was responsible for providing currency supplied by Al-Haramain, including the currency obtained by codefendant Soliman Al-Buthe from Al- Haramain USA, to a representative of Muhammad Al-Sayf, aka Abu Umar, to be smuggled into Chechnya. Al-Sanad has claimed that the monies he provided to Al- Sayf’s representative were destined for needy Chechen families. Seda objected to the substitution and asked either for “an uneditorialized summary” or for the production of the underlying material. After careful review of the materials at issue, we conclude that the substitution’s language unfairly colored presentation of the information and, even more problematic, that the substitution omitted facts helpful to Seda’s defense. Further detail and analysis of the substitution is contained in the classified opinion with respect to the substitution. The substitution is statutorily inadequate because it does not provide Seda with “substantially the same ability to make his defense as would disclosure of the specific classified information.” 18 U.S.C. app. 3 § 6(c)(1). The brief summary contains both inculpatory and exculpatory information. On the one hand, it supports the government’s theory that the El-Fiki donation went to fund the mujahideen in Chechnya because it indicates that AlSanad gave the money to a representative of Al-Sayf, who the government established at trial was a religious leader associated with the Chechen mujahideen at the time. On the UNITED STATES V. SEDAGHATY 35 other hand, it supports Seda’s claim that, as far as he knew, the donation was to be used to fund humanitarian relief. The wording of the summary bolsters the inculpatory section while discrediting the exculpatory section. For example, the first sentence presents Al-Sanad’s transfer of the El-Fiki donation to Al-Sayf’s representative as a fact about which the government has “obtained information.” The second sentence, by contrast, embeds skepticism into AlSanad’s exculpatory statement about the destination and use of the funds, dismissing it as something Al-Sanad “has claimed.” This is but one example of the neutrality deficiencies in the statement. It is no surprise that Seda ultimately chose not to use the substitution at trial. Because the underlying documents are classified, we are constrained in our comments about the summary. But it is a fundamental principle underlying CIPA that the summary should be evenhanded, worded in a neutral fashion and not tilted or shaded to the government’s advantage. See S. Rep. No. 96-823 at 9 (1980), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4302-03 (stating that the “judge should ensure that a substitution . . . is crafted so that the Government obtains no unfair advantage in the trial”). In isolation, the characterization of the evidence may not be a sufficient basis to reject the substitution. More troubling, however, is the exclusion from the summary of further information that is helpful to Seda’s defense. The classified nature of the material highlights the awkward nature of our review: Seda is forced to argue for the relevance of the material without actually knowing what the classified record contains, while we know what it contains but are unable to describe it on the public record. See United States 36 UNITED STATES V. SEDAGHATY v. Amawi, 695 F.3d 457, 471 (6th Cir. 2012) (without the benefit of “the adversarial process, we must place ourselves in the shoes of defense counsel, the very ones that cannot see the classified record, and act with a view to their interests”) (citation omitted).10 We can say, however, that the summary excludes exculpatory information and fails to provide crucial context for certain information that it does convey. Although there is no indication of bad faith, the government appears to have looked with tunnel vision at limited issues that it believed were relevant. Even granting the district court wide latitude in its evidentiary decisionmaking, as we must, we conclude that the summary is inadequate not only because of its slanted wording but more fundamentally because it is incomplete. United States v. Clegg (“Clegg I”), 740 F.2d 16, 18 (9th Cir. 1984) (upholding rejection of a substitution where the classified documents “are relevant to the development of a possible defense” and the “government’s proposed summaries of the materials are inadequate”). It would be illogical to conclude that a substitution that excludes non-cumulative exculpatory information could “provide the defendant with substantially the same ability to make his defense as would disclosure of the specific classified information” as required by CIPA § 6. 18 U.S.C. app. 3 § 6(c)(1); see also Moussaoui, 382 F.3d at 478–79 (rejecting proposed substitutions that failed to include exculpatory information); Fernandez, 913 F.2d at 158 (upholding rejection of proposed substitutions because the “substitutions would have required the jury to judge [the defendant’s] role . . . , and thus the truth of his statements about it, in a contextual vacuum”). 10 The defense did file an ex parte submission outlining its theory of the defense to aid the court in its review of the classified material. UNITED STATES V. SEDAGHATY 37 The dissent attempts to minimize the importance of the substitution by taking the position that the evidence would be inadmissible hearsay and that Seda waived his objection to the substitution. The dissent overlooks the most important fact about the substitution’s admissibility—the government agreed to stipulate to its admission at trial. The government did not argue that the substitution was hearsay or otherwise inadmissible. Rather, recognizing that it was in a difficult position with respect to the possession of exculpatory information and Seda’s right to a fair trial, the government made the calculated move to agree to stipulate to the admission of the substitution as a trial exhibit. Not surprisingly, in the face of a slanted and unhelpful summary, Seda’s counsel ultimately withdrew the substitution as a stipulated exhibit just before trial. But defense counsel ought not be put in a Catch-22 situation whereby it has to accept the government’s deficient summary or none at all. The dissent also manufactures an argument not presented by the government—that Seda waived his objections to the substitution.11 On August 20, 2010, Seda filed objections to the summary substitution and moved for “an uneditorialized summary.” Without being able to access any of the underlying documents, Seda objected that the summary omitted relevant and helpful information about the individual to whom Al-Sanad transferred the funds. He also objected to the fact that the summary included language that questioned Al-Sanad’s veracity and argued that the defense should be entitled to offer the exculpatory statements actually provided by Al-Sanad. Alternatively, Seda moved for access to more complete unclassified versions of the underlying materials on 11 The government simply replied to Seda’s objections on the merits. 38 UNITED STATES V. SEDAGHATY which the summary was presumably based. Seda never withdrew or waived this objection. At a hearing the week before trial, the defense reiterated its objections to the summary substitution. The government replied that it would stipulate to the admission of the summary, but would not revise or alter it, saying, “we think it’s either all or nothing.” In response, the court said only, “Okay,” and moved on to another topic. Later in that same hearing, as the judge was making final rulings on the exhibits, the government reiterated its position with regard to the summary and stated that the only decision was whether the defense wanted to accept the summary in its current form or not. The defense responded, “At this time, Your Honor, we would not be offering it. We’ve pointed out what we believe needs to be done.” (emphasis added). The defense withdrew the exhibit in that form, at that time, but explicitly referenced and reiterated its objection. Seda did not withdraw or waive his objection to the court’s approval of the government’s summary substitution. Nor could Seda’s counsel have been expected to offer an intelligent substitution or alternative language, since he did not have access to the underlying classified documents. Having been unsuccessful at challenging the substitution before trial, Seda’s recourse is in this appeal. We are fully cognizant of the delicate task entrusted to the district court in matters involving classified information. To that end, CIPA lays out a defined process for substitutions such that, when classified information is relevant and helpful to his defense, the defendant should be placed, “as nearly as possible, in the position he would be in if the classified information were available to him.” Moussaoui, 382 F.3d at 477; see also, 18 U.S.C. app. 3 § 6(c)(1). In the end, the UNITED STATES V. SEDAGHATY 39 inadequate substitution interfered with Seda’s ability to present a complete defense. Although the government argues that substitution was sufficient, it does not make any argument that the facts omitted are harmless. See United States v. Boulware, 384 F.3d 794, 898 (9th Cir. 2004).