## Facts

- Eugene Ray Clegg, a U.S. citizen teaching in Islamabad, Pakistan, became involved in supplying weapons to Afghan rebels.
- Clegg asserted that U.S. officials affiliated with multiple agencies solicited, encouraged, and assisted his efforts to provide arms.
- Relying on those statements and conduct as official permission, Clegg transported weapons through Pakistan to Afghan rebels.
- Clegg was arrested and imprisoned in Pakistan, then transferred to U.S. custody and prosecuted in federal court.
- The government charged Clegg with unlawful firearms export and related arms-control violations under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1) and 22 U.S.C. § 2778(b)(2), (c).
- During CIPA proceedings, the district court ruled (after in camera review) that certain classified and unclassified information was relevant and admissible to Clegg’s defense that he acted in reasonable good-faith reliance on apparent authorization by U.S. officials.
- The government took an interlocutory appeal under CIPA challenging that admissibility ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant charged with firearms-export offenses may present a due process-based good-faith reliance (entrapment-by-estoppel) defense based on apparent authorization or representations by U.S. officials.
2. Whether the district court erred under CIPA in ruling that classified information supporting that defense was relevant and admissible at trial.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s pretrial order admitting classified and unclassified information relevant to Clegg’s proposed reliance defense.
- The court held that circuit precedent recognized a defense where a defendant reasonably relies in good faith on representations or apparent authority of government officials indicating the conduct is lawful.
- Because the reliance defense was legally cognizable, evidence tending to show official solicitation, encouragement, assistance, or authorization was relevant; classification status triggered CIPA procedures but did not itself justify exclusion.
- The court found no abuse of discretion or legal error in the district court’s CIPA § 6(a) admissibility determination.

## Legal Principles

- Due process may bar conviction where the government, through officials with apparent authority, affirmatively leads a defendant to reasonably believe charged conduct is lawful (entrapment by estoppel / good-faith reliance).
- When such a defense is available, evidence of official statements or conduct supporting reasonable reliance is relevant under ordinary evidentiary rules.
- CIPA provides procedures for handling classified information (including in camera review and pretrial admissibility rulings) but does not alter substantive standards of relevance or admissibility.
- Classified status alone is not a basis to exclude defense evidence that is relevant to a valid defense; the prosecution must proceed consistent with CIPA’s mechanisms or reassess whether to continue the case.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld a pretrial order allowing Clegg to use classified and unclassified evidence supporting a good-faith reliance/entrapment-by-estoppel defense, holding that CIPA cannot be used to exclude otherwise relevant defense evidence merely because it is classified.


United States v. Clegg, 846 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1988)