## Facts

- Dr. Wen Ho Lee, a Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist, was federally indicted on charges involving alleged mishandling of classified nuclear-weapons–related information.
- Before trial, Lee moved for a declaration that CIPA §§ 5 and 6 were unconstitutional as applied to his case.
- CIPA § 5(a) requires a defendant to provide notice briefly describing classified information the defense reasonably expects to disclose at trial.
- After a § 5 notice, CIPA § 6(a) allows the government to request an in camera hearing for rulings on the use, relevance, and admissibility of the classified information.
- If the court finds the classified information admissible, CIPA § 6(c) permits the government to seek substitutions (summaries or admissions) if they provide the defense substantially the same ability to present its case.
- If the government elects to prevent disclosure under CIPA § 6(e), the court may impose remedies, including dismissal of counts, adverse findings on related issues, or preclusion of government witness testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether CIPA § 5’s notice requirement, as applied, violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by forcing premature disclosure of defense strategy.
2. Whether CIPA § 6’s substitution and non-disclosure procedures, as applied, violate the Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation and to present a defense.
3. Whether CIPA §§ 5–6, as applied, violate due process by creating unfairness or an imbalance favoring the prosecution in a case involving classified information.

## Decision

- The court denied Lee’s motion and held CIPA §§ 5 and 6 constitutional as applied.
- The court treated CIPA as a procedural framework for resolving admissibility questions involving classified material before trial.
- The court concluded § 5 requires only a brief notice of anticipated classified disclosures and does not compel testimonial self-incrimination.
- The court concluded § 6’s substitution mechanism protects defense rights because substitutions are allowed only when they preserve substantially the same ability to present the defense.
- The court relied on § 6(e)’s remedial options as safeguards if the government withholds classified information that is necessary for a fair trial.

## Legal Principles

- CIPA is procedural and does not alter the parties’ substantive rights; it provides pretrial mechanisms for judicial management of classified information in criminal cases.
- A requirement that a defendant give advance notice of certain trial disclosures can be consistent with the Fifth Amendment when it regulates timing and form rather than compelling testimonial admissions.
- Substitutions for classified information are permissible only if they provide the defendant substantially the same ability to make the defense as disclosure of the specific classified information.
- When the government seeks to bar disclosure of classified information, the court must have authority to prevent unfairness through remedies that can include dismissal of charges, adverse determinations on issues tied to the excluded evidence, or limits on government proof.
- Due process is satisfied where the trial court retains a gatekeeping role over relevance, admissibility, substitutions, and appropriate remedies to protect the defendant’s opportunity to present a defense.

## Conclusion

The court upheld CIPA §§ 5 and 6 as applied in Lee’s prosecution, finding that the Act’s notice, in camera admissibility review, substitution standards, and available sanctions adequately protect Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and due process while permitting protection of classified information.


United States v. Lee, 90 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (D.N.M. 2000)