Judge Brinkema Cites Espionage Act to Protect Reporter’s Privilege
Charlie Savage tells the headline story from Leonie Brinkema’s opinion on whether or not James Risen must testify in Jeffrey Sterling’s leak trial.
“A criminal trial subpoena is not a free pass for the government to rifle through a reporter’s notebook,” wrote the judge, Leonie Brinkema of the United State District Court in Alexandria, Va.
But I’m just as interested in a few other things she says. First there’s the way she dismisses the government’s claim that two of the people who testified to the Grand Jury–Jeffrey Sterling’s ex-girlfriend and a former CIA officer with knowledge of the MERLYN operation–would be unable to testify at he trial.
The government had argued that the girlfriend was protected by spousal privilege and that the former CIA officer would be hearsay.
Separate and apart from Risen’s concession regarding the admissibility of his grand jury affidavit at trial, see Mot. p. 45, other evidence relied upon by the Court in its Memorandum Opinion similarly would be inadmissible at trial. For example, the grand jury testimony of the witness cited by the Court at page 7 of its Memorandum Opinion would be inadmissible under Rules 801(c), 802 and 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and United States v. Acker, 52 F.3d 509, 514-515 (4th Cir. 1995)(availability of spousal privileges to testifying and non-testifying spouses). The grand jury testimony of the witness cited by the Court at pages 7, 9, 10, 20, and 34 of its Memorandum Opinion – testimony that this Court deemed one of the key facts in its conclusion – is inadmissible hearsay on its face absent some exception; yet Risen treats the admissibility of the testimony of both witnesses as a foregone conclusion.
But as Risen’s lawyer Joel Kurtzberg pointed out during the hearing on Risen’s subpoena, she’s not his wife!
They actually cite in their papers as to the testimony of Mr. Sterling’s ex-girlfriend, suggest that it wouldn’t be admissible because they cite to a Fourth Circuit case about the marital privilege.
And in fact, if you look at the case they cite, the case holds the exact opposite. It holds that if you are not married, even if you have been living together I believe for 26 years in that case, the marital privilege doesn’t apply.
Here’s how Brinkema dismisses this William Welch gimmick.
Although the government argues that the spousal privilege would prevent this witness from testifying, nothing in the record indicates thta Sterling and the witness are married now or were married during the time of Sterling’s alleged statements.
More interesting still is the way Brinkema dismisses the government’s claim that the CIA officer’s testimony would be inadmissible hearsay.
Brinkema starts by citing Federal Rules of Evidence describing the exception for a statement against interest.
A statement is admissible under this exception if: (1) the speaker is unavailable; (2) the statement is actually adverse to the speaker’s penal interest; and (3) corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.
After noting that Risen’s testimony would be unavailable if she found that reporter’s privilege prevented his testimony or if he refused to testify, she then invokes the Espionage Act.
Risen’s statements are adverse to his penal interest because receiving classified information without proper authorization is a federal felony under 18 U.S.C. 793(e); see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2M3.3 (providing a base offense level 29 for convictions for the “Unauthorized Receipt of Classified Information.”). 6
6 The government clearly recognizes Risen’s potential exposure to criminal liability and has offered to obtain an order of immunity for him.
Brinkema uses the overzealous interpretation of the Espionage Act the government itself has been floating lately as a way to force the government to have the former CIA officer testify, which I suspect they’d much rather not do.
And note that footnote about immunity. I’m not sure whether we knew the government had discussed offering Risen immunity or not, but particularly given claims they’re pursuing his testimony so aggressively as a way to jail him for protecting his sources, it is an interesting revelation.
Finally, there’s one more passage I find telling. In the middle of a passage discussing whether the government has access to the information Risen would testify to via other means, she notes,
The government has not stated whether it has nontestimonial direct evidence, such as email messages or recordings of telephone calls in which Sterling discloses classified information to Risen; nor has it proffered in this proceeding the circumstantial evidence it has developed.
In a case in which the government has pointed to records of emails and calls, Brinkema notes, the government has never said whether or not it has the content of those emails and calls. Given that this statement is a non sequitur (it appears amid a discussion of circumstantial evidence), and given that Brinkema knows the government may have improperly accessed Risen’s phone records in the warrantless wiretap case, I find her comment mighty suggestive.
Do you think the government will back off rather than permit those two to testify?
Boxturtle (It’s hell when the judge knows what you’re trying to hide and doesn’t want you hiding it)
@BoxTurtle: Oh, I’m sure the ex-girlfriend will testify. The former CIA person is a totally different issue. I suspect he might be another source for Risen (Risen told his publishers he had multiple sources). Plus it might be hard for that person to avoid talking about the op itself.
O/T but very interesting:
Court: Rumsfeld Can Be Sued For Torture
| themoderatevoice.com/118736/court-rumsfeld-can-be-sued-for-torture/3 minutes ago –
A federal district court judge has ruled that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may be sued for torture allegedly committed against …
The Associated Press: Judge allows American to sue Rumsfeld over …www.google.com/…/ap/…/ALeqM5g47CEnKf1uqeig6HJAvRSL_XQaIw?…WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge has ruled that former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld can be sued personally for damages by a former U.S. military …
apologies for the early OT: via the Guardian – “UK’s secret policy on torture revealed”
“A top-secret document revealing how MI6 and MI5 officers were allowed to extract information from prisoners being illegally tortured overseas has been seen by the Guardian.
The interrogation policy…instructed senior intelligence officers to weigh the importance of the information being sought against the amount of pain they expected a prisoner to suffer. It was operated by the British government for almost a decade.”
Cell Phone Location Tracking Public Records Request; ACLU; 8/3/11
re judge brinkima’s decision:
could it be that finally the long slumbering federal judiciary is waking up to the extraordinary abuses of law and legal precedent the prosecutors in our department of injustice have been using for a decade, most egregiously, repeatedly lying to the courts in pleadings.
Steven Aftergood over at Secrecy News has a different opinion than Judge Brinkema as to whether Risen could be subject to a criminal charge for receiving classified information:
Is Unauthorized Receipt of Classified Information a Felony?
@MadDog: Interesting. I wonder if Brinkema just included it bc the govt alleged as such.
@emptywheel: And another question is whither goest the DOJ and Welch?
Do they appeal or eat the crow and stumble onward?