Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PUBLISHED
OPINION
I. Facts
A. Procedural History
1. The Indictment
2. Appointment of Counsel
Court has said is that Mr. Freeman cannot and does not qualify
as an attorney of record because he has consistently made it clear
that he is not entering an appearance on your behalf. . . . [H]e
could get admitted to practice here if he followed the local rule.
So we have a lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this dis-
trict, who is not the attorney of record representing you. There-
fore, under the SAM[s], he is no different from any member of
the public. Now, members of the public can write to you under
the SAM[s]. That letter would be reviewed by an FBI agent, and
if there was no objection to it, it would go to you.
J.A. 1040-41.
3
Rule 15(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that
a court may order depositions of witness to preserve testimony for trial
"because of exceptional circumstances and in the interest of justice."
12 UNITED STATES v. MOUSSAOUI
During the pendency of the earlier appeal, the district court
revoked Moussaoui’s right to proceed pro se. Since October
2003, the district court had received over twenty filings from
Moussaoui, "most of which [were] not proper requests for
appropriate judicial relief." J.A. 1368. These filings "in-
clude[d] veiled, and in some cases overt, threats to public offi-
cials, attacks on foreign governments, attempts to
communicate with persons overseas, and efforts to obtain
materials unrelated to this case." J.A. 1368.4 After the district
court specifically warned Moussaoui that he might lose his
right to continue pro se if he continued this course, Mous-
saoui filed two additional improper pleadings, and the district
court revoked Moussaoui’s pro se status.5 Moussaoui would
later testify that his writings were intentionally designed to
promote his agenda of disseminating propaganda about al
Qaeda’s war against the United States.
J.A. 1435-36.
II. Discussion
a.
b.
The parties in this case were aware from the outset that
voluminous classified information pertaining to al Qaeda and
the 9/11 attacks would require special handling under CIPA.
The parties agree that the effect of the Protective Order was
that Moussaoui’s defense counsel would have access to classi-
fied information produced under CIPA § 4, but could not
show or discuss the contents of the material with Moussaoui
who, as an admitted al Qaeda terrorist already detained on
immigration violations, would not be granted the necessary
clearance. The Protective Order, however, did not preclude
Moussaoui from ever having access to material or exculpatory
evidence. On the contrary, Moussaoui would be given per-
sonal access to classified information "if such access should
be determined by the Court to be necessary." J.A. 101.
J.A. 993-94.
V. Sentencing
A.
B.
United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 322 (2d Cir. 2007)
(citations and footnote omitted).
VII. Conclusion
AFFIRMED