3 ms·

The obvious solution is to have a court that can handle classified material.

• JoshTriplett 10y ago
  The defendant has a legal right to be present, and to see all the evidence presented against them, even if they're neither allowed to receive "classified" information nor bound to not disclose it. So no, classified evidence is not evidence. If you can't make a case against someone without classified information, decide which you care more about: the classification of the information, or the conviction.
  • tropo 10y ago
    There would be lawyers with security clearances, and the defendant would usually have to rely on his lawyer. It's not perfect, but it balances the conflicting needs better than any alternative I've ever seen. Note that this isn't 1-sided in favor of the government. Consider what happens today. People working at Area 51 tried to sue over being exposed to toxins, but were stopped by the state secrets privilege. That privilege would die if we had classified courts.
  • kabdib 10y ago
    Can the defendant insist on a jury trial if some of the evidence is classified? What happens then?
    • burfog 10y ago
      There really shouldn't be any trouble finding people with security clearances to be on the jury. If anything, this is a far superior "jury of peers". It's people who do the same sort of work.
      • JoshTriplett 10y ago
        > It's people who do the same sort of work. Exactly the problem. "People with security clearances" seems like a set of people more likely on average to favor the government point of view, to the point that a defense attorney that allowed twelve people with security clearances to form a jury has utterly failed at voir dire.
        • burfog 10y ago
          In general, yes, they might favor the government point of view. In this case however, they'd be asked to judge one of their own. ("that could be me") That balances things off pretty well. For sure, it's a more caring and accurate group of people than the usual collection of students, old ladies, and unemployed people. It'd work fine.
          • brokenmachine 10y ago
            That's the first time I've ever heard of a bunch of FBI spooks being described as "caring and accurate".
  • tn13 10y ago
    As far as American criminal justice is concerned "due process" actually means "plausible fantasy".
    • brokenmachine 10y ago
      It needs to be plausible? Damn you and your impossible standards, you commie terrorist!!
  • tropo 10y ago
    That would work out very badly. Consider this cold war example: Somebody high-up in the CIA is secretly working for the USSR. They are passing everything to the USSR. Over in the USSR there is a similar situation, with somebody passing KGB things to the CIA. The guy secretly working for us is able to reveal the person secretly working for the USSR. Now we grab the person. If we reveal the evidence to him and everybody in unclassified court proceedings, it will get back to the USSR. Our agent in Moscow will be caught. Even if we black out his name, he will be caught. It's a scary enough risk just acting on the info he supplied. Your way of doing things gives us 3 terrible choices: a. Evacuate our super-valuable guy from Moscow. b. Get our guy in Moscow killed. c. Let the spy go unpunished, thus encouraging others.