X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The federal judge presiding over an alleged money-laundering-for-terrorism case is literally giving defense counsel the keys to the courthouse. Northern District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy has rejected a prosecution proposal that would have resulted in limited defense access to sensitive materials and only under the direct oversight of a Justice Department security specialist. McAvoy held that defense counsel Terence L. Kindlon and Kevin A. Luibrand “will be deemed trustworthy to view the classified material at any time they wish and without the presence of” the court security officer. They will be permitted to view classified information only in a special area designated in the federal courthouse. Thus, they must have access to their respective secure rooms at all times, the judge said. He directed the government to provide the attorneys with keys to their room and with swipe cards so they can get into the building whenever they want. The court instructed the government to provide Kindlon and Luibrand with safes for their notes, computers, printers, printer cartridges and other materials that “will never leave the secure room and will be returned to the possession of the Court Security Officer at the conclusion of this case.” McAvoy’s protective order this week in U.S. v. Aref and Hossain, 04-CR-402, contained fewer constraints than the U.S. Department of Justice sought and more than the defense and intervenor media organizations preferred. The case involves two members of an Albany, N.Y., mosque who were arrested this summer on money laundering charges. Yassin Muhiddin Aref and Mohammed Mosharref Hossain were caught in a sting operation and accused of laundering funds that they were led to believe were the proceeds from the sale of a missile launcher that would be used to carry out a terrorist plot in New York City. Prosecutors invoked the Classified Information Procedures Act to restrict the flow of information. In a proposed order submitted last month, Assistant U.S. Attorneys David M. Grable and Gregory A. West and Justice Department counterterrorism specialist Gregg N. Sofer sought a number of restrictions to prevent the unauthorized release of classified information. The prosecutors insisted, notwithstanding the fact that defense counsel must receive the same security clearances as court staff, that Kindlon and Luibrand be under the direct observation of a security officer whenever they view classified materials. Although that officer, Michael P. Macisso, is a Justice Department employee, he is required to serve the court rather than the prosecution or the defense. Kindlon and Luibrand objected to large portions of the proposed order. They argued that it would interfere with their ability to provide effective assistance to their clients. They were especially uneasy with Macisso’s role, and the fact that a Justice employee would essentially be looking over their shoulders as they reviewed sensitive materials. McAvoy said that “the defense overstates the peril” from the security officer’s being privy to their notes. But he prohibited Macisso from listening to any conversation between or among counsel or to tell the government which documents defense attorneys examine in the secure area. “Despite the fact that the [security officer] and the prosecution are both employed by the [Justice Department], the Court is confident that there will be no divulging of confidences and counsel’s notes will not be reviewed” by the security officer, he wrote. IN CAMERA REVIEW Judge McAvoy also recognized a problem of revealing classified information only to those with the appropriate clearances, which would prevent the defendants from viewing information that could be crucial to their defense. “Because it is highly unlikely that the [Justice Department] would grant security clearances to someone charged with providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, the practical effect of the Government’s proposed Order is that the defendants themselves would have no access to any classified material,” McAvoy said. He said that proposed order is “too broad,” especially since at least one of the defendants is likely to assert an entrapment defense. An entrapment defense would require the government to establish a defendant’s propensity to support terrorist activities, and evidence of that nature would likely be classified, McAvoy said. The court said “defense counsel must be afforded the right to open certain classified evidence to their clients.” McAvoy is requiring the prosecution to present each piece of classified material at issue for an in camera hearing where, he said, the government must be ready to explain the “security significance thereof so the Court can balance the defendants’ right to access the material against the Government’s interest in non-disclosure.” MEDIA CONCERNS McAvoy addressed a motion by several media companies to intervene. He noted the media’s interest in open proceedings and open records, but refused to grant newspapers, TV and radio stations full party status so they can be advised of or granted an opportunity to be heard any time information is sealed. “There is no First Amendment right of access to classified materials filed in a court proceeding under CIPA’s provisions,” McAvoy said, referring to the Classified Information Procedures Act. “The invocation of CIPA no more warrants making Press Intervenors (or any other party styling themselves as the public’s surrogate) a party to this action than it does abandoning … First Amendment and common law rights.” McAvoy indicated he will seek to strike a balance between protecting the interests of both the government and the media. Representing the media intervenors were Michael J. Grygiel and William A. Hurst of McNamee, Lochner, Titus & Williams in Albany.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.