Opinion ID: 1463880
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The CIPA Process

Text: Under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Government must produce, among other things, items material to preparing the defense. Fed. R.Crim.P. 16(a)( l )(E)(i). However, [a]t any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief, and may permit a party to show good cause by a written statement that the court will inspect ex parte.  Fed. R.Crim.P. 16(d). `[G]ood cause' includes the protection of information vital to the national security. United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Originally enacted by Congress in an effort to combat the growing problem of graymail, a practice whereby a criminal defendant threatens to reveal classified information during the course of his trial in the hope of forcing the government to drop the charge against him, United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 245 (4th Cir.2008), CIPA provides procedures for protecting classified information without running afoul of a defendant's right to a fair trial. [15] Section 4 of CIPA governs discovery of classified information by a defendant, and is the most pertinent provision in Moussaoui's challenge. It provides that: [t]he court, upon a sufficient showing, may authorize the United States to delete specified items of classified information from documents to be made available to the defendant through discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to substitute a summary of the information for such classified documents, or to substitute a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove. The court may permit the United States to make a request for such authorization in the form of a written statement to be inspected by the court alone. 18 U.S.C.A. app. 3, § 4; see In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Afr., 552 F.3d 93, 121 (2d Cir.2008) (CIPA § 4's provisions on discovery ... complement those of Rule 16(d) by giv[ing] trial judges adequate guidance to protect against the unauthorized disclosure of classified information in the custody of the federal courts. (internal quotation marks omitted)). Section 4 allows the district court to authorize the government to redact information from classified documents before providing such documents to the defendant during pre-trial discovery. United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 514 n. 6 (4th Cir.2003) ( Moussaoui I ) (emphasis added); see also Aref 533 F.3d at 78 (CIPA § 4 clarifies [the] district courts' power under [Rule] 16(d)(1) to issue protective orders denying or restricting discovery for good cause.); United States v. Smith, 780 F.2d 1102, 1105 n. 7 (4th Cir.1985) (en banc) (noting that CIPA § 4 provides a procedure by which the court can delete portions of classified documents to be discovered by a defendant. Substitutions are also permitted under certain circumstances.). Sections 5 and 6 of CIPA establish[ ] a pretrial procedure for ruling upon the admissibility of classified information. Smith, 780 F.2d at 1105. The defendant must notify the government and the court of classified information he expects to use, and the defendant is prohibited from disclos[ing] any information known or believed to be classified ... until the United States has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to seek a determination pursuant to the procedure set forth in section 6 of [CIPA]. 18 U.S.C.A. app. 3, § 5. Once the defendant gives notice of his intention to introduce classified information, the United States may request a [section 6] hearing at which the court shall determine the `use, relevance, or admissibility of classified information that would otherwise be made during the trial or pretrial proceeding.' Smith, 780 F.2d at 1105 (quoting 18 U.S.C.A. app. 3, § 6(a)). [16] If the court authorizes the disclosure of specific classified information under the procedures established by [section 6], the United States may move that, in lieu of the disclosure of such specific classified information, the court approve the use of a substitution in the form of a statement admitting relevant facts that the specific classified information would tend to prove, or a summary of the specific classified information. 18 U.S.C.A. app. 3, § 6(c)(1); see also Smith, 780 F.2d at 1105. The court shall grant such a motion of the United States if it finds that the statement or summary will provide the defendant with substantially the same ability to make his defense as would disclosure of the specific classified information. 18 U.S.C.A. app. 3, § 6(c)(1) (emphasis added). [17]
The parties in this case were aware from the outset that voluminous classified information pertaining to al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks would require special handling under CIPA. In January 2002, the district court issued the Protective Order, pursuant to Rule 16(d)(1) and CIPA § 3. Under the Protective Order, classified information would be produced by the Government only to persons possessing the requisite security clearance, a category that included Moussaoui's appointed counsel but excluded Moussaoui. All other person[s] whose assistance the defense reasonably require[d] [could] only have access to classified information ... after obtaining from the Courtwith prior notice to the governmentan approval for access to the appropriate level of classification on a need to know basis. J.A. 97-98. Defense counsel were also prohibited from disclos[ing] such information or documents to [Moussaoui] without prior concurrence of counsel for the government, or, absent such concurrence, prior approval of the Court. J.A. 104. The parties agree that the effect of the Protective Order was that Moussaoui's defense counsel would have access to classified information produced under CIPA § 4, but could not show or discuss the contents of the material with Moussaoui who, as an admitted al Qaeda terrorist already detained on immigration violations, would not be granted the necessary clearance. The Protective Order, however, did not preclude Moussaoui from ever having access to material or exculpatory evidence. On the contrary, Moussaoui would be given personal access to classified information if such access should be determined by the Court to be necessary. J.A. 101. The parties agreed upon a schedule for handling the classified information issues, providing deadlines for the filing of section 5 designations by the defense and section 6 requests by the Government. The final section 6 hearing to resolve all remaining classified issues was to be completed several weeks prior to trial. In June 2002, Moussaoui's motion to proceed pro se was granted, complicating the manner in which the district court and counsel had intended to handle the classified information produced in discovery. Because of the complexity of the case, the district court opted to exercise its discretion to appoint standby counsel to assist the court and Moussaoui with these matters. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 178-79, 104 S.Ct. 944, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105, 110 (4th Cir.1988). In September 2002, the handling of classified information was further complicated when Moussaoui began seeking access to the ECWs. Faced with an issue of first impression, the court issued a new set of discovery orders protecting certain classified information pertaining to these witnesses pending decisions on the issue of whether Moussaoui would be granted access to the witnesses for Rule 15 depositions or whether suitable substitutions could be prepared under CIPA § 6(c). After an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order granting access to the ECWs, we initially remanded the matter to allow the Government to propose CIPA § 6(c) substitutions for the ECWs testimony and directed the district court to determine whether the proposed substitutions `w[ould] provide the defendant with substantially the same ability to make his defense as would' the disclosure ordered by the district court. United States v. Moussaoui, No. 03-4162, 2003 WL 1889018 (4th Cir. Apr.14, 2003) (unpublished order) (quoting CIPA § 6(c)(1)). The Government's proposed CIPA § 6(c) substitutions for the testimony of the ECWs were thereafter taken from answers to questions recorded in highly classified reports ... intended for use in the military and intelligence communities and not with this litigation in mind. Moussaoui II, 382 F.3d at 458 n. 5. Portions of the[se] reports concerning Moussaoui and the September 11 attacks [were] excerpted and set forth in documents prepared for purposes of this litigation. Id. These documents were deemed summaries by the parties and the district court. Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). The summaries were then provided to defense counsel in conformance with the Government's obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). The proposed substitutions [were] based on the... summaries. Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). The Government presented these highly classified reports, along with the summaries for comparison, to the district court ex parte. The summaries themselves remained classified pending the appeal process but were produced to defense counsel. Upon its ex parte review, the district court was impressed with the accuracy of the classified summaries, see id. at 478 n. 30, but felt that the classified reports that led to the proposed substitutions were unreliable and that the substitutions were also flawed, see id. at 459. Thus, the district court ordered the Government to produce the witnesses for Rule 15 depositions. When the Government refused to produce the witnesses, the district court ruled that Moussaoui had adequately demonstrated that the witnesses could provide testimony that, if believed, might preclude a jury from finding Moussaoui eligible for the death penalty and dismissed the death notice. Id. at 459. [B]ecause proof of Moussaoui's involvement in the September 11 attacks was not necessary to a conviction, and because the witnesses' testimony, if believed, could exonerate Moussaoui of involvement in those attacks, the district court also ruled the Government would be prohibited from making any argument, or offering any evidence, suggesting that [Moussaoui] had any involvement in, or knowledge of, the September 11 attacks. Id. at 459-60 (internal quotation marks omitted). On September 13, 2004, we issued our decision affirming the district court's conclusion that the [ECWs] could provide material, favorable testimony on Moussaoui's behalf. Moussaoui II, 382 F.3d at 456. With regard to the substitutions, we agreed that they were inadequate but rejected the district court's implicit conclusion that no adequate substitutions could be crafted because the classified summaries were inherently inadequate. See id. at 478. In particular, we noted the Government's profound interest in obtaining accurate information from the witnesses and in reporting that information accurately to those who can use it to prevent acts of terrorism and to capture other al Qaeda operatives, ... considerations [that] provide[ed] sufficient indicia of reliability to alleviate the concerns of the district court. Id. We found that the classified summaries did provide an adequate basis for the creation of substitutions, id. at 479, and remand[ed] with instructions for the district court and the parties to craft substitutions under certain guidelines. Id. at 457. Accordingly, when we remanded to the district court in the previous appeal, the CIPA process was well underway, but incomplete. The classified, exculpatory information had been produced by the Government to defense counsel pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order. In accordance with our holding that Moussaoui was entitled to such evidence in a suitably unclassified form for use at trial, the district court was poised to finalize this process, with the input and assistance of counsel for both parties and Moussaoui, when Moussaoui notified the district court of his desire to enter an unconditional plea of guilty to all counts.