Government Lawyers Hoping To Keep Leaker's Lawyers From Talking About Leaked Documents

from the proposed-bag-of-zip-it dept

The prosecution is underway for NSA contractor Reality Winner, alleged to have leaked a classified document about Russian election hacking to journalists at The Intercept. (The government hasn't officially confirmed The Intercept was the recipient of Winner's alleged leak, but the timing detailed in the indictment indicates this is most likely the case.)

Prosecutors are hoping to limit what Winner's lawyers can and can't say when defending this case. Following the government mindset that somehow believes publicly-published classified documents are still somehow "secret," prosecutors are asking the judge to engage in a little prior restraint.

In a motion filed Tuesday, federal prosecutors said they had reached an impasse with Winner’s defense team and asked the court to resolve the question in the government’s favor. [PDF link]

In June, the government sent to Winner’s counsel a proposed protective order that would bar the unauthorized use, disclosure or dissemination of any classified information provided to members of Winner’s defense team who obtain security clearances. Classified information would include any information designated “confidential,’ “secret,” “top secret” or “sensitive compartmented information.”

But it would also include “any document or information … now or formerly in the possession of a private party, which has been derived from a United States Government classified document, information, or material.” The proposed order would also include information secured from a foreign government or from any member of the U.S. intelligence community that “could reasonably be believed to contain classified information.”

There are several problems with the government's proposed protective order, not the least of which is it expects the defense team to know in advance whether or not a document is properly classified before they discuss it publicly. This would be mitigated somewhat if it was limited solely to documents provided to the defense by prosecutors.

But it covers far more than that. It covers documents like the one Winner allegedly handed to the press, which was a classified document. And it would forbid discussion of that document before, during, and after the trial. As noted above, it covers anything "derived" from a classified document as well, which is information the defense lawyers may not have.

The broadly-written requests covers almost anything the defense should "reasonably believe" is classified, top secret, etc. A straightforward reading of the proposed order suggests the lawyers defending Winner could not publicly discuss any other documents leaked to the press, even if everyone else is free to do so without repercussion.

Information that is classified that also appears in the public domain is not thereby automatically declassified unless it appears in the public domain as the result of an official statement by a U.S. Government Executive Branch official who is authorized to declassify the information. Individuals who by virtue of this Order or any other court order are granted access to the classified information may not confirm or deny classified information that appears in the public domain.

If granted, the order would force Winner's defense lawyers to agree to every stipulation of this order before being allowed to access sensitive documents it may need to use in court. Winner's lawyers have pushed back, but haven't received any concessions from prosecutors.

Prosecutors suggested that defense lawyers were seeking to ensure that they would not be held criminally liable “for repeating information that they had learned through public sources without ever knowing that the information was classified.”

But prosecutors said they repeatedly have rejected the proposal which they claim “would essentially redefine or render ambiguous what constitutes classified information.”

The prosecutors are being disingenuous. The government has far more power to "redefine or render ambiguous what constitutes classified information" than the defense does. If its order is granted, the government will have the power to make publicly-available documents "secret" -- at least as far as Winner's lawyers are concerned. In perpetuity.

Set up the way it is, the defense can be off the hook criminally for any disclosures if the lawyers can somehow prove they didn't "reasonably know" the information was classified. Proving a negative is tough, and the best way to avoid being put in this situation is to just stop talking about anything publicly -- which is probably the way the government would prefer it.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    A Passing Stranger, 13 Jul 2017 @ 10:07am

    Your [Redacted], members of the [Redacted], I am [Redacted], [Redacted]-at-law here to defend [Redacted] from the charge of [Redacted]. I was planning to present an opening statement but it was [Redacted]. Thank you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 Jul 2017 @ 10:24am

      Re:

      Yeah. I was thinking that the defense should just declare their defense classified and prohibit the prosecution, judge, or jury from any access to any part of it. Along with the prosecutions presumption that anything classified is true and because of its classified nature cannot be argued as untrue, the defense wins, because the defense is classified, presumed truthful, and cannot be argued as untrue.

      It would be at least as clear as the governments position.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2017 @ 11:20am

        Re: Re:

        I was thinking that the defense should just declare their defense classified

        The prosecution's demands play nicely into this. Tell the judge and jury that (a) the prosecution won't let us discuss classified material and (b) all defense information is derived from classified material and is therefore covered. Remind the jury that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Then dispute any evidence that the prosecution tries to introduce on the basis that it has classified provenance and the jury is not authorized to know it. With no admissible evidence from either side, the presumption of innocence prevails.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2017 @ 10:11am

    "Prosecutors are hoping to limit what Winner's lawyers can and can't say when defending this case."

    Wow - that sounds like a totally fair trial.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2017 @ 10:57am

      Re:

      Wow - that sounds like a totally fair trial.

      Just the way the Chief Executive wants it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 14 Jul 2017 @ 2:28am

      Re:

      "If the defendant is facing anything less than a completely one-sided trial where the only chance they have is to accept a plea bargain and hope we're feeling merciful(we never are) then someone on our side screwed up."

      -What I imagine you might hear if the prosecutors in cases like this were capable of honesty

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    SpaceLifeForm, 13 Jul 2017 @ 12:12pm

    Example doc to file with court

    TS/ORCON

    [REDACTED]

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bergman (profile), 13 Jul 2017 @ 3:15pm

    So Winner walks?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 13 Jul 2017 @ 3:18pm

      Re: So Winner walks?

      WTB edit button!

      Under federal law, denying someone the right to confront their accuser -- and their accuser's evidence -- produces at best a mistrial. A plain language reading of the Constitution suggests it should be an automatic acquittal instead, because it is a felony to violate someone's Constitutional rights under color of law (18 USC 241 & 242).

      Federal agents, federal prosecutors, federal judges -- none of them are exempt from that law.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2017 @ 8:37pm

        Re: Re: So Winner walks?

        Under federal law, denying someone the right to confront their accuser -- and their accuser's evidence -- produces at best a mistrial.

        Err, no, it produces convictions. Which is exactly what they want.

        Federal agents, federal prosecutors, federal judges -- none of them are exempt from that law.

        Try to tell them that.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.