[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Miscellaneous See other Miscellaneous Articles Title: CIA-Iran leak trial postponed at last minute The trial of a former CIA officer charged with leaking top secret information to a New York Times reporter was abruptly postponed Friday afternoon after the government announced its intent to appeal a judge's ruling on witnesses. Jury selection was set to begin Monday morning in federal court in Alexandria, Va. for the case against ex-CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, who's accused of giving Times reporter James Risen top-secret details of a CIA operation to undermine Iran's nuclear weapons program by providing flawed nuclear designs to Tehran. Word of the postponement came following a closed-door hearing Friday afternoon to discuss how classified information would be handled during the trial. A docket entry said U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema had decided to "strike two witnesses" and that prosecutors had advised the court of their intention to appeal. No further details were provided. Pre-trial appeals of a ruling about witnesses are not common. However, the law regulating the use of classified information in court, the Classified Information Procedures Act, gives the government the right to pursue a pre-trial appeal of rulings on such issues. One possibility is that during the series of closed-door hearings on classified matters, Brinkema ruled that defense attorneys were entitled to use certain classified information as part of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Under CIPA, the government has ultimate control over what classified information will be released and can refuse any disclosure ordered by the judge. However, the judge is authorized to impose sanctions which can range from suppressing prosecution evidence to barring certain testimony to dismissal of the case. If Brinkema's decision to bar the witnesses arose in that context, the government would be entitled to an immediate appeal. If her ruling related to other issues, the government's right to an appeal could be more murky. A Justice Department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. One of Sterling's defense attorneys, Ed MacMahon Jr., said Friday he could not comment on the postponement until the judge's detailed ruling that triggered it is made public. UPDATE: This post has been updated with new details. Posted by Josh Gerstein
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||