Opinion ID: 3066075
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: cipa provisions

Text: 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”).