Opinion ID: 2968022
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instructions for the District Court

Text: The Government’s submissions in response to the Petition make clear that members of the prosecution team, [ ] have had some input [ ] the enemy combatant witnesses. Our review of the circumstances of this access indicates that the input by the prosecution team into the [ ] process has worked no unfairness on Moussaoui. Nevertheless, in order to provide Moussaoui with the fullest possible range of information from the witnesses, we direct the district court to provide Moussaoui with an ] [ ] 50 UNITED STATES v. MOUSSAOUI opportunity to [ ] for [ ] discretionary use [ ] of the witnesses.34
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the district court, erred in ruling that any substitution for the witnesses’ testimony is inherently inadequate to the extent it is derived from the [ ] reports. To the contrary, we hold that the [ ] summaries (which, as the district court determined, accurately recapitulate the [ ] reports) provide an adequate basis for the creation of written statements that may be submitted to the jury in lieu of the witnesses’ deposition testimony. The compiling of substitutions is a task best suited to the district court, given its greater familiarity with the facts of the case and its authority to manage the presentation of evidence.35 Nevertheless, we think it is appropriate to provide some guidance to the court and the parties. First, the circumstances of this case—most notably, the fact that the substitutions may very well support Moussaoui’s defense—dictate 34 During the hearing regarding the Petition, defense counsel expressed concern over whether [ ] would result in the disclosure of trial strategy to the Government. The Government, in its June 16 filing, informs us that measures can be taken to avoid such disclosures. We leave the particulars of any such process to the discretion of the district court. See United States v. Jones, 136 F.3d 342, 349 (4th Cir. 1998) (noting that discovery matters are left to the discretion of the district court). At an absolute minimum, however, whatever process is adopted must ensure that the prosecution team is not privy to [ ] propounded by the defense, just as the defense was unaware of [ ] propounded by the prosecution team. 35 We note that the district court will not be drafting original language for submission to the jury. Instead, as we discuss further in the text, Moussaoui will designate portions of the [ ] summaries for submission; the Government will raise objections and cross-designate portions of the summaries it believes are required by the rule of completeness; and the district court will make rulings as necessary to compile an appropriate set of substitutions. UNITED STATES v. MOUSSAOUI 51 that the compiling of substitutions be an interactive process among the parties and the district court.36 Second, we think that accuracy and fairness are best achieved by compiling substitutions that use the exact language of the [ ] summaries to the greatest extent possible. We believe that the best means of achieving both of these objectives is for defense counsel to identify particular portions of the [ ] summaries that Moussaoui may want to admit into evidence at trial. The Government may then offer any objections and argue that additional portions must be included in the interest of completeness, as discussed below. If the substitutions are to be admitted at all (we leave open the possibility that Moussaoui may decide not to use the substitutions in his defense), they may be admitted only by Moussaoui. Based on defense counsel’s submissions and the Government’s objections, the district court could then compile an appropriate set of substitutions.37 We leave to the discretion of the district court the question of whether to rule on the admissibility of a particular substitution (e.g., whether a substitution is relevant) at trial or during pre-trial proceedings. 36 We disagree with Judge Gregory’s view that, by assigning the district court a role in compiling the substitutions, we have place[d] the district court in the position of being an advocate in the proceedings, post, at 59, and that we are setting ourselves out as super-arbiters of the admission of evidence in this case, id. at 59 n.4. In fact, what we are asking the district court to do is little removed from the quite ordinary judicial task of assessing the admissibility of evidence. And, any subsequent review by this court on these matters will involve nothing more than review of evidentiary rulings—a routine function of an appellate court. We also disagree with Judge Gregory’s suggestion that we are some- how contravening CIPA by mandating that the district court be involved in compiling substitutions. CIPA authorizes the Government to move for an order approving substitutions for classified information, see 18 U.S.C.A. App. 3 § 6(c)(1), but it does not mandate that the Government draft proposed substitutions. Thus, although it is likely that the Government will draft substitutions in the vast majority of CIPA cases, nothing in CIPA expressly or implicitly precludes the involvement of defense counsel or the district court. 37 We leave it to the district court to determine whether national security mandates non-substantive changes, such as alternate names for people or places, in order to accommodate national security concerns articulated by the Government when the substitutions are being compiled. 52 UNITED STATES v. MOUSSAOUI As previously indicated, the jury must be provided with certain information regarding the substitutions. While we leave the particulars of the instructions to the district court, the jury must be informed, at a minimum, that the substitutions are what the witnesses would say if called to testify; that the substitutions are derived from statements obtained under conditions that provide circumstantial guarantees of reliability; that the substitutions contain statements obtained over the course of weeks or months; that members of the prosecution team have contributed to [ ] the witnesses; and, if applicable, that Moussaoui has [ ] to the witnesses.38
Moussaoui asserts that allowing the Government to argue that additional portions of the summaries must be included in the substitutions will result in substitutions larded with inculpatory information under the guise of ‘completeness,’ Petition at 12, in violation of the Confrontation Clause, see Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1374 (2004). And, indeed, the Government has indicated its view that the rule of completeness would allow it to designate an inculpatory portion of a witness’ statement to counter an exculpatory statement by the same witness designated by Moussaoui.39 See Hrg. Tr. (June 3, 2004) at 59-60; see also Response at 35 (asserting that rule of completeness requires introduction of witness statements in their full context). The common law rule of’ completeness is partially codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 106, which provides, When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse 38 We are mindful of the fact that no written substitution will enable the jury to consider the witnesses’ demeanor in determining their credibility. See Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc. v. NLRB, 97 F.3d 65, 71 (4th Cir. 1996) (noting that demeanor is a factor in determining credibility). We believe that the instructions outlined above, plus any other instructions the district court may deem necessary in the exercise of its discretion, adequately address this problem. 39 The Government acknowledges that, under the circumstances here, the rule of completeness would not allow it to use a statement by one witness to complete a statement by another. UNITED STATES v. MOUSSAOUI 53 party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it. The purpose of Rule 106 is to prevent a party from misleading the jury by allowing into the record relevant portions of [a writing or recorded statement] which clarify or explain the part already received. United States v. Wilkerson, 84 F.3d 692, 696 (4th Cir. 1996). The rule is protective, merely. It goes only so far as is necessary to shield a party from adverse inferences, and only allows an explanation or rebuttal of the evidence received. United States v. Corrigan, 168 F.2d 641, 645 (2d Cir. 1948) (alteration & internal quotation marks omitted); see Echo Acceptance Corp. v. Household Retail Servs., Inc., 267 F.3d 1068, 1089 (10th Cir. 2001) (The rule of completeness . . . functions as a defensive shield against potentially misleading evidence proffered by an opposing party.). We offer two examples of the operation of these principles in the context of the [ ] summaries. [ ] [ ] J.A.C. (03-4162) 435. If Moussaoui designated the first sentence of this excerpt for inclusion in the substitutions, the rule of completeness would not allow the Government to include the second sentence. The second sentence neither explains nor clarifies the first; moreover, the second sentence is inadmissible because it is Witness A’s speculation, not his personal knowledge. Our second example also relates to Witness A’s [ ] summaries: 54 UNITED STATES v. MOUSSAOUI [ ] Id. at 429. Suppose Moussaoui offered the following substitution based on the language of this paragraph: [ ] This substitution could mislead the jury by implying that Witness A had a higher position in al Qaeda than he actually did. Accordingly, if Witness A’s status in al Qaeda were relevant to an issue in the case, the rule of completeness would allow the Government to demand the addition of the phrases [ ] and [ ] to the proposed substitution. In short, we wish to make clear that the rule of completeness is not to be used by the Government as a means of seeking the admission of inculpatory statements that neither explain nor clarify the statements designated by Moussaoui. On the other hand, the defense’s ability to propose substitutions based on the language of the [ ] summaries is not a license to mislead the jury.
On rehearing, both parties acknowledged our holding that CIPA does not apply here but indicated their belief that once the district court has approved substitutions for the witnesses’ testimony, CIPA comes into play, with the result that the Government may object to the disclosure of the classified information in the substitutions and request that the district court adopt an alternative form of evidence. See 18 U.S.C.A. App. 3 § 6. We disagree. It must be remembered that the substitution process we here order is a replacement for the testimony of the enemy combatant witnesses. UNITED STATES v. MOUSSAOUI 55 Because the Government will not allow Moussaoui to have contact with the witnesses, we must provide a remedy adequate to protect Moussaoui’s constitutional rights. Here, that remedy is substitutions. Once Moussaoui has selected the portions of the [ ] summaries he wishes to submit to the jury and the Government has been given an opportunity to be heard, the district court will compile the substitutions, using such additional language as may be necessary to aid the understanding of the jury. Once this process is complete, the matter is at an end—there are to be no additional or supplementary proceedings under CIPA regarding the substitutions.