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

Heading: cipa claims

Text: Although this is a tax fraud case, the prosecution discovered that the government possessed some relevant classified information, which was handled under CIPA procedures. Those procedures endeavor to harmonize a defendant’s right to a fair trial with the government’s right to protect classified information. See United States v. Abu30 UNITED STATES V. SEDAGHATY Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 140 (2d Cir. 2010). While the government must safeguard classified information in the interest of national security, “courts must not be remiss in protecting a defendant’s right to a full and meaningful presentation of his claim to innocence.” United States v. Fernandez, 913 F.2d 148, 154 (4th Cir. 1990). The government filed six motions seeking protection for classified materials, all of which were granted by the district court. Seda challenges the court’s handling of these classified matters, including its approval of an unclassified summary, the use of ex parte proceedings, and the restriction on defense counsel’s use of classified material that the defense had placed in safekeeping.
Congress enacted CIPA in 1980 “to help ensure that the intelligence agencies are subject to the rule of law and to help strengthen the enforcement of laws designed to protect both national security and civil liberties.” S. Rep. No. 96-823, at 3 (1980), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4294, 4296. CIPA does not expand or restrict established principles of discovery and does not have a substantive impact on the admissibility of probative evidence. United States v. Johnson, 139 F.3d 1359, 1365 (11th Cir. 1998); S. Rep. No. 96-823 at 8, reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4301–03. Instead, CIPA “establishes procedures for handling classified information in criminal cases,” United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 2008), so that district courts may rule “on questions of admissibility involving classified information before introduction of the evidence in open court,” United States v. Sarkissian, 841 F.2d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). Two sections of CIPA are relevant here: § 4 UNITED STATES V. SEDAGHATY 31 governs the pretrial discovery of classified information by defendants, and § 6 sets out procedures to safeguard classified information, both before and during trial. CIPA § 4 was intended “to clarify the court’s powers under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1) to deny or restrict discovery in order to protect national security.”9 Sarkissian, 841 F.2d at 965; S. Rep. No. 96-823 at 6, reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4299. Section 4 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. 18 U.S.C. app. 3 § 4. 9 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) provides that: At any time the court may, for good cause, deny, restrict, or defer discovery or inspection, or grant other appropriate relief. The court may permit a party to show good cause by a written statement that the court will inspect ex parte. If relief is granted, the court must preserve the entire text of the party’s statement under seal. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1). 32 UNITED STATES V. SEDAGHATY When considering a motion to withhold classified information from discovery, a district court must first determine whether, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, statute, or the common law, the information at issue is discoverable at all. United States v. Rewald, 889 F.2d 836, 847–48 (9th Cir. 1989). If the material at issue is discoverable, the court must next determine whether the government has made a formal claim of the state secrets privilege, “‘lodged by the head of the department which has actual control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer.’” United States v. KlimaviciusViloria, 144 F.3d 1249, 1261 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7–8 (1953)). Once a court concludes that the material is discoverable and that the state secrets privilege applies, then the court must determine whether the evidence is “relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused.” Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60–61 (1957); United States v. Gurolla, 333 F.3d 944, 951 (9th Cir. 2003). If the information meets the “relevant and helpful” test, CIPA § 4 empowers the court to determine the terms of discovery, if any. 18 U.S.C. app. 3 § 4. CIPA § 6, which applies to both pre-trial and trial proceedings, guides the procedures for making “determinations concerning the use, relevance, or admissibility of classified information. . . .” 18 U.S.C. app. 3 § 6(a). Specifically, CIPA § 6(c)(1) deals with substitutions and provides that a court may authorize a substitution for classified material in the form of a statement or summary “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. app. 3 § 6(c)(1). This requirement arises out of the Constitution’s guarantee that all criminal UNITED STATES V. SEDAGHATY 33 defendants must have “‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’” Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324 (2006) (quoting Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986)). Indeed, the “need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709 (1974). The substitution need not be of “precise, concrete equivalence,” and the “fact that insignificant tactical advantages could accrue to the defendant by the use of the specified classified information should not preclude the court from ordering alternative disclosure.” H.R. Rep. No. 96-1436, at 12-13 (1980) (Conf. Rep.), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4310–11. Nevertheless, the fundamental purpose of a substitution under CIPA is “to place the defendant, as nearly as possible, in the position he would be in if the classified information . . . were available to him.” United States v. Moussaoui, 382 F.3d 453, 477 (4th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. Rezaq, 134 F.3d 1121, 1143 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (approving substitutions where “[n]o information was omitted from [them] that might have been helpful to [the] defense, and the discoverable documents had no unclassified features that might have been disclosed”).
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).
Seda raises four other claims related to CIPA: the ex parte nature of many of the CIPA proceedings; the potential withholding of additional classified information that is relevant and helpful to the defense; the exclusion of a classified document in his counsel’s possession; and the claim that classified evidence reveals the search warrant was prompted by prior illegal surveillance.
Seda’s broadside challenge to the in camera and ex parte proceedings is a battle already lost in the federal courts.12 Long ago we underscored that “[e]x parte hearings are generally disfavored,” but held that “[i]n a case involving classified documents, however, ex parte, in camera hearings in which government counsel participates to the exclusion of defense counsel are part of the process that the district court may use in order to decide the relevancy of the information.” Klimavicius-Viloria, 144 F.3d at 1261. 12 Seda moved to strike the classified, ex parte appellate briefs and excerpts of record filed by the government or, in the alternative, to request access for his security-cleared counsel and expert to the documents. We denied the motion for the same reasons discussed below with regard to the requirements of CIPA. We reviewed the classified briefs and excerpts of record from both parties. 40 UNITED STATES V. SEDAGHATY Seda especially protests three occasions during trial in which the court held closed hearings with cleared counsel for both parties and then excused defense counsel and met ex parte with the prosecutors.13 These brief ex parte hearings, which directly followed the hearings with defense counsel, were held at the court’s request to clarify issues related to the court’s prior CIPA rulings. CIPA does not limit the court’s discretion to hold an ex parte conference if it is required by some overriding necessity such as the necessity to protect sensitive information related to national security, as it was here. See United States v. Thompson, 827 F.2d 1254, 1258 (9th Cir. 1987) (recognizing that “situations where the court acts with the benefit of only one side’s presentation are uneasy compromises with some overriding necessity, such as the need to act quickly or to keep sensitive information from the opposing party”). Apart from his general objections to the ex parte proceedings, Seda claims that he should have received more fulsome notice of the subject of the filings and that his security-cleared counsel should have had access to the classified documents in discovery. The government filed six notices informing Seda that it had filed in camera, ex parte submissions to the court. All of these notices apprised Seda that the submissions were filed pursuant to CIPA § 4, thus notifying him that the government requested authorization from the court to withhold items from discovery that were not relevant and helpful to Seda’s defense. 13 For whatever reason, the docket sheet does not reflect these closed hearings. The hearings should have been docketed but the failure to do so is harmless in light of defense counsel’s knowledge of the hearings and the fact that the transcripts are available for appellate review. UNITED STATES V. SEDAGHATY 41 Seda is of the view that the failure of the notices to describe in unclassified terms the nature of what had been provided to the court makes the filings inadequate. Both Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) and § 4 of CIPA, however, explicitly provide for ex parte filings and do not require that detailed notice of the content of the filing be provided. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1) (“The court may permit a party to show good cause by a written statement that the court will inspect ex parte.”); 18 U.S.C. app. 3 § 4 (“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.”). The notices complied with CIPA and were constitutionally adequate—Seda has no due process right to receive a description of materials in the government’s possession that are not discoverable.14 See United States v. Mejia, 448 F.3d 436, 458 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting that, in the context of CIPA, as in other discovery in criminal cases, the defendant is “‘not entitled to access to any of the evidence reviewed by the court . . . to assist in his argument’ that it should be disclosed”) (citation omitted). Similarly, the simple fact that defense counsel held security clearances does not mean that the attorneys were entitled to access the government’s classified filings. See United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467, 568 (5th Cir. 2011) (approving, in the context of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, denial of discovery to cleared defense counsel because of the government’s substantial interest in maintaining secrecy). 14 For the limited material that was discoverable, CIPA § 4 allows the government to either turn over the original material or create an adequate substitution. 18 U.S.C. app. 3 § 4. An adequate substitution obviates the need for counsel to access the underlying classified material itself (although the government may share it with security-cleared defense counsel to craft an appropriate substitution if the nature and classification of the material permits and the government so chooses). 42 UNITED STATES V. SEDAGHATY In sum, the ex parte proceedings were authorized by CIPA, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), and the compelling justification and overriding necessity required by common law. The proceedings did not violate Seda’s rights. Our careful review of the classified record confirms that all of the classified filings and transcripts of all of the hearings, including the classified ex parte hearings, have been preserved and made available to us on appeal. The district judge, now retired, was meticulous in his review of the classified material.
The district court did not improperly withhold relevant and helpful information from discovery under CIPA § 4 or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1). See Gurolla, 333 F.3d at 951. We have reviewed the government’s classified submissions in their entirety. The bulk of the information the government sought to withhold was not discoverable. Apart from the classified material underlying the inadequate substitution discussed above, those few items that were discoverable were not relevant and helpful to the defense. The defense provided an analysis by Colonel Lang, former head of Human Intelligence for the Department of Defense. Although we credit Colonel Lang’s experience and expertise, his speculation concerning the documents (to which he did not have access) is just that.
Before trial, Seda’s counsel came into possession of a classified document. Counsel took appropriate steps to safeguard access and negotiated an agreement to turn the material over to a Classified Information Security Officer for UNITED STATES V. SEDAGHATY 43 placement in a secure facility in Washington, D.C. After the district court issued what Seda terms a “gag order”— prohibiting counsel from referencing or disclosing the document—Seda sought reconsideration of that order six times. Seda’s counsel also gave notice under CIPA § 5 of its intent to use the classified information at trial. The district court reviewed the material in camera, determined that the material was not relevant to the charges, and denied reconsideration of the protective order.15 Upon reviewing the document and the district court’s in camera determinations with a fresh eye, we affirm the district court’s determination and conclude that there was no violation of CIPA §§ 5–6. See Rewald, 889 F.2d at 847–48 (“[W]e decline [the defendant’s] invitation to undertake an all-encompassing analysis of this issue, and simply confine our review to the relevancy and admissibility of the classified materials. . . .”). The district court’s limited protective order did not violate Seda’s right to counsel or his right to present a defense. See Moussaoui, 591 F.3d at 289 (“The right to communicate with counsel at any point in the proceedings is not absolute.”). The order was justified by compelling national security concerns and the restrictions were limited to a single document that was not relevant to the charges. See Morgan v. Bennett, 204 F.3d 360, 367 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[T]he court should not, absent an important need to protect a 15 Seda also raises a concern that government attorneys or agents participated in the district court’s review of the material that was placed in the secure facility. The records and representations of the Classified Information Security Officers entrusted with the material reflect that no one has accessed the documents except the court and the Classified Information Security Officer on one occasion, and the defense counsel together with the Classified Information Security Officer, on another occasion. 44 UNITED STATES V. SEDAGHATY countervailing interest, restrict the defendant’s ability to consult with his attorney, but . . . when such a need is present and is difficult to fulfill in other ways, a carefully tailored, limited restriction on the defendant’s right to consult counsel is permissible.”).
Seda speculates that the classified materials contain evidence of prior unlawful surveillance that led to the search warrant application. The record does not support a claim of taint. See Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 542 (1988). The affidavit attached to the warrant detailed the investigation that established probable cause for the search. The investigative interviews, grand jury subpoenas, and other lawful investigative techniques that made up that investigation were the legitimate basis for the decision to seek the warrant.