U.S. v. Clegg, 83-3126
Decision Date | 14 August 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 83-3126,83-3126 |
Citation | 740 F.2d 16 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eugene Ray CLEGG, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Alix Foster, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellee.
Jerald Olson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellant.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Before KENNEDY, SKOPIL and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This is an interlocutory appeal by the United States seeking review of the district court's order compelling disclosure of classified information. We affirm.
Clegg was charged through a second superseding indictment of exporting firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(a)(1) and 22 U.S.C. Secs. 2778(b)(2) and (c). During pretrial proceedings, Clegg filed a motion under Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(C), requesting the court to order the government to produce documents in the possession of the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency which allegedly contained information of defendant's gunrunning. The government opposed the request, asserting that the information sought was not material to the preparation of a valid defense and that any such documents would likely be subject to the Classified Information Procedures Act ("CIPA"), 18 U.S.C.App. III Secs. 1-16 (1982).
The district court granted Clegg's discovery motion and directed the government to produce the requested documents and information. The government submitted classified and unclassified documents to the district court in camera ex parte hoping to establish that the documents were not material to the defense. The district court allowed defendant to submit in camera ex parte an affidavit setting out in detail why the requested information was material to the preparation of the defense. After review the district court ruled the documents were discoverable.
The government then sought to bring the classified documents under the protection of CIPA and asked the district court to reconsider its previous ruling permitting discovery of the classified documents or, in the alternative, to allow substitution of a summary and to delete some of the information in the classified documents. The district court, after an in camera ex parte review of the documents and a review of the alternative substitution with deletions, ruled that the classified documents were material and discoverable under Rule 16, and that the proposed alternative substitution with deletions was deficient and not acceptable.
The government appealed.
Clegg moves this court to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. His challenge is to section 7 of CIPA, 18 U.S.C.App. III. Sec. 7 (1982), which provides inter alia:
(a) An interlocutory appeal by the United States ... shall lie to a court of appeals from a decision or order of a district court in a criminal case authorizing the disclosure of classified information, imposing sanctions for nondisclosure of classified information, or refusing a protective order sought by the United States to prevent the disclosure of classified information.
Clegg argues that "disclosure" means to the public, not to the defendant. He contends that the Act uses the word "discover" or "discovery" when referring to information passing from the government to the defendant, and "disclosure" when referring to information being made public by the defendant....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Anderson
...by limiting evidence in a trial" to that which is legally sufficient. Id. at 416, 100 S.Ct. at 637-38. 13 The court in United States v. Clegg, 740 F.2d 16 (9th Cir.1984), which addressed only a CIPA discovery issue, merely alluded to a "possible defense" by an individual charged with export......
-
United States v. Doe
...of discovery is within the district court's discretion, so we review discovery rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Clegg, 740 F.2d 16, 18 (9th Cir.1984). To find an abuse of discretion, we must “have a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear e......
-
United States v. Sedaghaty
...summary is inadequate not only because of its slanted wording but more fundamentally because it is incomplete. United States v. Clegg (“Clegg I”), 740 F.2d 16, 18 (9th Cir.1984) (upholding rejection of a substitution where the classified documents “are relevant to the development of a possi......
-
United States v. Alahmedalabdaloklah
...material written in Arabic.13 We review for abuse of discretion the district court's CIPA discovery orders. See United States v. Clegg, 740 F.2d 16, 18 (9th Cir. 1984). "Congress enacted CIPA in 1980 'to help ensure that the intelligence agencies are subject to the rule of law and to help s......
-
Beyond Interrogations: An Analysis of the Protection Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 of Technical Classified Sources, Methods and Activities Employed in the Global War on Terror
...defeat the very purpose" of the Government's request to withhold discovery of the classified materials at issue); United States v. Clegg, 740 F.2d 16, 17 (6th Cir. 1984) (noting that the district court allowed the Government to submit classified and unclassified documents for in camera ex p......