2nd Circuit Panel Backs Ex Parte Review in Upholding Terrorism Conviction
U.S. Circuit Judge José Cabranes said that, in drafting the Classified Information Procedures Act, Congress had not required defense participation in ex parte proceedings, which are considered by the court alone.
April 16, 2020 at 05:28 PM
3 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said on Thursday that a defense attorney's security clearance did not entitle him to access confidential documents submitted to a federal judge in a terrorism prosecution.
The ruling, from a three-judge panel of the Manhattan-based appeals court, came in a 34-page opinion that upheld the conviction of Muhanad Mahmoud Al-Farekh, a U.S. citizen who is serving a 45-year prison sentence for joining al-Qaida and plotting a 2009 car-bomb attack on a U.S. military base in Afghanistan.
Al-Farekh's attorneys had argued in their appeal that a Brooklyn federal judge had improperly denied his trial attorney access to motions filed ex parte under Section 4 of the Classified Information Procedures Act, a key law meant to balance a defendant's rights with the government's need to protect sensitive information in national security prosecutions.
Though the Second Circuit had previously sanctioned ex parte proceedings in CIPA cases, Al-Farekh argued that those decisions applied only when defense counsel did not have proper security clearance and asked the court to allow access when lawyers could meet the threshold.
The Second Circuit, however, declined to "adopt any such bright-line rule" that it said "cannot be reconciled with CIPA."
U.S. Circuit Judge José Cabranes said that, in drafting the CIPA, Congress had not required defense participation in ex parte proceedings, which are considered by the court alone. District court judges, however, are authorized to substitute a summary of the classified information at the government's request, and prosecutors can file an interlocutory appeal for any motion denying a request for a protective order.
"If a defendant's counsel was required to participate in a Section 4 proceeding and be provided access to classified information, as Al-Farekh contends, the alternative relief authorized in these provisions would be rendered insignificant, if not meaningless," Cabranes wrote on behalf on the panel.
In Al-Farekh's case, U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan of the Eastern District of New York met with defense counsel before reviewing the classified material and even revised some of the government's proposed substitutions before approving them, according to the opinion.
"Far from abusing its discretion, the District Court properly exercised its authority under CIPA when it reviewed and adjudicated the Government's CIPA motions ex parte and in camera. We find no basis in CIPA for vacating Al-Farekh's conviction," Cabranes said.
He was joined in the ruling by U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier and U.S. District Judge Christina Reiss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, who sat by designation.
A spokesman for the Brooklyn U.S. Attorney's Office declined to comment on the ruling. Lawrence Stern, a Brooklyn attorney who represented Al-Farekh on appeal, was not immediately available to comment.
The case, on appeal, was captioned Al-Farekh v. United States.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSEC Under Trump 2.0 Likely to Take More 'Measured' Enforcement Approach, Observers Say
Decision of the Day: Attorney in Social Security Case Awarded Fees, But Must Pay Client Refund Under Equal Access to Justice Act
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250