quote: A federal judge issued a highly unusual classified ruling yesterday, denying a motion for dismissal of a case against two leaders of an Albany mosque who are accused of laundering money in a federal terrorism sting operation.
Because the ruling was classified, the defense lawyers were barred from reading why the judge decided that way.
The defense lawyers had asked the judge to dismiss the case, saying that they believed the government's evidence came from wiretaps obtained without a warrant by the National Security Agency.
"Unusual" doesn't necessarily mean bad, but I'm bothered by this because the rights of the accused are supposed to be given a lot of weight in our judicial system.
Also, I'm hoping for a test case of the NSA spying program and if the cases are going to go forward as "classified" that's not going to happen very readily.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's very possible that the defense did not meet the burden of production such that any government evidence was required.
If the government produced evidence in chambers that did not come from the NSA wire tap, then the judge would have no basis for granting the motion. And, because defendants are not entitled to hear the evidence against them until trial, there would be no infringement on any recognized right.
Federal grand jury testimony is usually kept secret until the day before that witness testifies at trial. Defendants often move for earlier disclosure, and this is often handled by an en camera (in chambers) review of the testimony. The judge then rules whether the defense attorney can see the testimony ahead of time.
It's not hard to see why. Imagine a secret informant's name being leaked before a big mafia RICO trial. Not good. It's easy to come up with a similar terrorism scenario.
While certainly "unusual" when compared to the number of cases, something similar actually happens fairly often.
Note that any evidence used to convict will be presented in front of the defendant at some point.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
What can be done to assure that the civil rights of our citizens are not being trampled? I'm afraid I don't trust the current administration's good will in this. I dislike the fact that they haven't (as far as I know) formed any rhetoric at all about protection of freedom of speech. Instead, all I've seen are excuses for the program's existence.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does freedom of speech have to do with this?
Also, does anyone have information that this isn't simply the standard justification for a secret pretrial ruling - that witnesses lives will be put at risk?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other than those pressing for a conviction, no one has any information whatsoever about what evidence and which assertions were considered during the making of this ruling. Which is what makes the judge's behaviour troublesome.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious. When you say "at some point" does that include a discovery phase or do you anticipate that the secret evidence will be presented only during trial?
Is it absolutely certain that the defendant will get to see all the secret evidence? Suppose, for example, the prosecutor decides that a conviction is possible without presenting the secret evidence which could be used to prosecute this same defendant under a separate crime if this trial doesn't quite work out.
In that case, the evidence that was used to block the pretrial motion might never get heard in an actual trial.
In addition, what if the judge hearing the pretrial motions is also the trial judge. He or she now has been exposed to evidence that the defendant may never learn the details of.
Also, from what I've heard "somewhere" the government might have a way of presenting secret evidence only to the judge who might then decide without the defendant hearing the evidence. Is that possible in this case?
Ultimately, I'm not comfortable with secret evidence. Even if it's for pretrial motions, the defendant should be allowed to know what the evidence is, and the details of the judge's decision shouldn't be classified.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
