No Easy Answers
Monday, April 10, 2006
Libby Motion to Compel Discovery - Reporters [Doc 29-1]
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 1 of 27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) CR. NO. 05-394 (RBW)
)
I. LEWIS LIBBY, ) Oral Argument Requested
also known as "Scooter Libby," )
Defendant. )
MOTION OF I. LEWIS LIBBY TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF INFORMATION
REGARDING NEWS REPORTERS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Theodore V. Wells, Jr. William H. Jeffress, Jr.
James L. Brochin Alex Bourelly
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Baker Botts LLP
& Garrison LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
1285 Avenue of the Americas Washington, DC 20004
New York, NY 10019-6064 (202) 639-7751
(212) 373-3089
Joseph A. Tate John D. Cline
Dechert LLP Jones Day
2929 Arch Street 555 California Street, 26th Floor
Cira Centre San Francisco, CA 94104
Philadelphia, PA 19104 Tel: (415) 626-3939
Fax: (415) 875-5700
January 26, 2006
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 2 of 27
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................................................................iii
BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 1
A. The Indictment Alleges That Mr. Libby Lied About
Conversations with Three Reporters............................... 1
B. Mr. Libby's Requests for Production of Relevant Materials
Pertaining to News Reporters and Organizations Have Been Denied . 2
C. The Information Sought by This Motion ........................... 4
ARGUMENT............................................................................. 6
A. Courts In This Circuit Interpret Rule 16 Broadly................. 6
B. The Discovery Mr. Libby Has Requested is Material to
the Preparation of His Defense .................................. 8
1. The Indictment Places News Reporters' Knowledge
About Ms. Wilson's Employment Status Squarely at Issue 8
a. Allegations Concerning Tim Russert............... 9
b. Allegations Concerning Matthew Cooper
and Judith Miller........................... 11
2. Information About News Reporters' Sources Is
Material to the Preparation of Mr. Libby's Defense .. 12
3. The Defense Needs the Requested Discovery To Investigate
Whether There Was a Plan to "Punish" Mr. Wilson by Leaking
Information about Ms. Wilson to the Press ........... 14
4. The Requested Discovery is Material to the Defense's
Investigation of Whether Ms. Wilson's Affiliation With
the CIA Was Known Outside the Intelligence Community
and Whether Such Information Was Regarded as Classified . 16
C. The Government's Cramped Reading of Rule 16 is Wrong
As a Matter of Law ............................................. 18
D. Much of the Information Mr. Libby Has Requested Is
Discoverable Under Brady ....................................... 20
i
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 3 of 27
Page(s)
E. The Government's Disclosure Obligations Extend to Subpoenas
and Agreements to Limit the Scope of Documents or Testimony
by Reporters.................................................... 22
CONCLUSION.......................................................................... 23
ii
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 4 of 27
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Page(s)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)............................................... 20
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)........................................ 20
In re Sealed Case No. 99-3096 (Brady Obligations), 185 F.3d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ... 20
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985)........................................ 20
United States v. Edwards, 191 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D.D.C. 2002).......................... 22
United States v. George, 786 F. Supp. 11 (D.D.C. 1991)............................... 7
United States v. Lloyd, 992 F.2d 348 (D.C. Cir. 1993)................................ 7
*United States v. Marshall, 132 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ...................... 6-8, 16
United States v. Paxson, 861 F.2d 730 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ............................. 21
United States v. Poindexter, 727 F. Supp. 1470 (D.D.C. 1989)......................... 7
*United States v. Safavian, No. Crim. 05-0375 (PLF), --- F.R.D. ---,
2005 WL 3529834 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2005)....................................passim
United States v. Sudikoff, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (C.D.Cal. 1999) ..................... 21
RULES
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 .............................................................passim
Fed. R. Crim. P. 17 ............................................................. 6, 22
Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2............................................................... 23
iii
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 5 of 27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) CR. NO. 05-394 (RBW)
)
I. LEWIS LIBBY, ) Oral Argument Requested
also known as "Scooter Libby," )
Defendant. )
MOTION OF I. LEWIS LIBBY TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF INFORMATION
REGARDING NEWS REPORTERS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Defendant I. Lewis Libby, through his counsel, hereby moves for an order
compelling the government to produce information in its possession obtained from or
relating to certain news reporters and organizations that is (a) material to the preparation
of the defense under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16, and/or (b) exculpatory or impeachment
information discoverable under the Brady doctrine. The information that is the subject of
this motion has been requested by the defense from the Office of Special Counsel, but the
request has been denied.
BACKGROUND
A. The Indictment Alleges That Mr. Libby Lied About Conversations
with Three Reporters
The government's investigation in this case began in the wake of the July
14, 2003 publication of a Robert Novak column identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA
employee. A "major focus" of the investigation "was to determine which government
officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003 information concerning the
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 6 of 27
affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of
such disclosures." (Indictment, Count One at ¶ 28.)
The indictment in this case charges Mr. Libby with obstruction of justice,
false statements, and perjury based upon statements he made during FBI interviews and
before a grand jury about his conversations with three reporters. Specifically, the charges
against Mr. Libby focus on his testimony concerning conversations prior to July 14, 2003
with: (1) Tim Russert of NBC News, (2) Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, and (3)
Judith Miller of The New York Times.
The indictment alleges that Mr. Libby lied when he testified that Tim
Russert asked him if he "knew that [Joseph] Wilson's wife worked for the CIA," and Mr.
Russert told him that "all the reporters knew it." (Id. at ¶ 32(a)(i).) According to the
indictment, Mr. Russert did not make such statements to Mr. Libby.
The indictment also alleges that Mr. Libby lied when he testified that he
told Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller "that he had heard that other reporters were
saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA." (Id. at ¶ 32(b), (c).) In addition, the
indictment alleges that prior to July 14, 2003 Ms. Wilson's employment by the CIA was
classified and not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. (Id. at ¶ 1(f).)
B. Mr. Libby's Requests for Production of Relevant Materials Pertaining
to News Reporters and Organizations Have Been Denied
Mr. Libby has made numerous discovery requests to the government
under Rule 16 and the Brady doctrine. This motion concerns the defense's request for
production of documents and information regarding three important issues in this case:
what did the press know prior to July 14, 2003 about whether Valerie Plame Wilson
2
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 7 of 27
worked at the CIA, from whom did they learn it, and with whom did they discuss it. This
information is important for a number of reasons. Most significantly, it relates directly to
the truth or falsity of two alleged false statements by Mr. Libby: (1) that Mr. Russert said
"all the reporters knew" about Ms. Wilson's employment status; and (2) that Mr. Libby
"had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA."
Accordingly, the defense asked the government to provide, for example,
all documents in its possession reflecting knowledge by any reporter or news
organization of Ms. Wilson's possible affiliation with the CIA prior to July 14, 2003. In
response, the prosecution invoked an extraordinarily narrow conception of its disclosure
obligations. The government has agreed to produce documents relating to news reporters
only to the extent that the documents reflect contact between Mr. Libby and reporters.
The government has refused to produce information in its possession about what
reporters learned from sources other than Mr. Libby about Ms. Wilson's employment
status prior to July 14, 2003 on the ground that such documents are not relevant to a
perjury and obstruction case. ^1
The government's decision to withhold the requested materials from the
defense is based on a view of relevance that ignores its own indictment. The charges put
squarely at issue what "reporters knew" about Ms. Wilson's employment status. It is
1
The government's refusal to provide any further documents or information
concerning news reporters is indicative of what has been in general a narrow and
overly restrictive view of its discovery obligations. For example, the prosecution has
disclaimed its obligation to obtain and produce documents and information within the
possession, custody or control of Executive Branch agencies other than the Office of
Special Counsel and the FBI. The defense will address this issue in a separate
motion.
3
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 8 of 27
material to the preparation of the defense to determine the identity of all reporters who
knew that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA, and to discover when they learned such
information, from whom they learned it, and whether they disclosed it further after
learning it. Such information will be useful not only for investigating the truth or falsity
of the indictment's allegations, but also for exploring the ways in which information
about Ms. Wilson's employment status circulated in Washington or reached Mr. Libby.
There can be no information more material to the defense of a perjury case
than information tending to show that the alleged false statements are, in fact, true or that
they could be the result of mistake or confusion. The government should not be allowed
to charge Mr. Libby with lying about statements concerning what reporters knew about
Ms. Wilson's identity, and at the same time deny him information that may establish one
of these possible defenses. On this important point, Mr. Libby is entitled to know what
the government knows. Only with this information can the defense adequately
investigate the accuracy of the allegations in the indictment and begin to determine if
potential witnesses may have misremembered the conversations alleged in the
indictment.
C. The Information Sought by This Motion
Because the government has failed to meet the disclosure mandates of
Rule 16 and Brady, this motion seeks to compel the government to produce:
1. All documents ^2 and other information reflecting knowledge by any
news reporter or employee of a news organization of Valerie
2
As used herein the term "documents" includes all written or recorded materials of any
kind, all e-mails and electronically stored information, and all video or audio
recordings.
4
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 9 of 27
Plame Wilson's ^3 possible affiliation with the CIA or her role in
connection with Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger prior to July 14,
2003. ^4
2. All documents and other information reflecting any mention of
Valerie Plame Wilson in any communication between a news
reporter and a government official, another news reporter, an
employee of a news organization, or any other person prior to July
14, 2003.
3. Copies of subpoenas issued to reporters and news organizations
during the grand jury investigation, and any agreements by the FBI
or Office of Special Counsel to limit the scope of the information
supplied pursuant to those subpoenas. ^5
The information requested by this motion is not the only information Mr.
Libby seeks under Rule 16 and Brady. Further discovery motions will be necessary once
we closely review the government's recently received response to our latest written
requests and complete our review of the discovery we have received or have been
promised. The present motion is filed at this time because the government has informed
the defense that it will not fully disclose the information sought by the defense
concerning news reporters and media organizations voluntarily. Early resolution of this
dispute will enable the defense to determine the necessity and scope of pretrial subpoenas
3
As used herein "Valerie Plame Wilson" means the wife of former Ambassador Joseph
Wilson, whether referred to by name (including the names Valerie Plame, Valerie
Wilson, Victoria Wilson, and Valerie Flame), or by other reference such as "Wilson's
wife" or "wife" or initials where the reference is believed to concern Valerie Plame
Wilson.
4
We note that documents and information are responsive to the requests in this motion
as long as they relate to events or communications that occurred prior to July 14,
2003, even if they were generated after that date.
5
The government has advised that it will provide the defense with copies of subpoenas
and pertinent correspondence relating to reporters referenced in the indictment and/or
whom the government expects to call at trial. However, the government is
withholding subpoenas and correspondence relating to other reporters.
5
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 10 of 27
duces tecum to third parties subpoenas that we anticipate may be resisted by some news
organizations and therefore lead to protracted legal proceedings.
To the extent that the information requested by this motion is already in
the possession of the government, obtaining the information from the government rather
than from reporters or news organizations may minimize prolonged litigation with those
parties. Such litigation may not be entirely avoidable, however, given that the
government may not possess all of the information relating to news reporters and
organizations that the defense needs to prepare for trial. But the government should not
be permitted to withhold the information sought by this motion and force the defense to
engage in protracted litigation with media organizations regarding the enforceability of
Rule 17(c) subpoenas simply to obtain information the government is obligated to
provide itself.
ARGUMENT
A. Courts In This Circuit Interpret Rule 16 Broadly
Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires
the government to disclose to the defense all documents and other materials "within the
government's possession, custody, or control" that are "material to preparing the
defense." The D.C. Circuit has consistently taken an expansive view of what the term
"material" means in this context. Under the D.C. Circuit's approach, "evidence is
material under Rule 16 as long as there is a strong indication that it will play an important
role in uncovering admissible evidence, aiding witness preparation, corroborating
testimony, or assisting impeachment or rebuttal." United States v. Marshall, 132 F.3d
6
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 11 of 27
63, 68 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Lloyd, 992 F.2d 348, 351 (D.C. Cir.
1993)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Courts in this jurisdiction interpret the scope of Rule 16 broadly to ensure
that the defense has a fair opportunity to prepare for trial. United States v. Poindexter,
727 F.Supp. 1470, 1473 (D.D.C. 1989) ("The language and the spirit of the Rule are
designed to provide to a criminal defendant, in the interest of fairness, the widest possible
opportunity to inspect and receive such materials in the possession of the government as
may aid him in presenting his side of the case."). Accordingly, the "materiality standard
normally is not a heavy burden." Lloyd, 992 F.2d at 351 (internal citation and quotation
marks omitted); United States v. George, 786 F. Supp. 11, 13 (D.D.C. 1991) (the
materiality hurdle "is not a high one").
Two additional points bear mentioning here. First, Rule 16 focuses on the
preparation of the defense. Therefore, documents are material under Rule 16 and subject
to disclosure if they help the defense to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses of the
government's case. Marshall, 132 F.3d at 67-68. For that reason, the government is
required to disclose both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence under Rule 16. Id. at 67
("Inculpatory evidence . . . is just as likely to assist in `the preparation of the defendant's
defense' as exculpatory evidence"); United States v. Safavian, No. CRIM.05-0370 PLF,
---- F.R.D. ----, 2005 WL 3529834, *4 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2005) (Rule 16 "is not limited
to evidence that is favorable or helpful to the defense and does not immunize inculpatory
evidence from disclosure") (a copy of this opinion is attached as Ex. A). Understanding
the "true strength of the government's evidence" is critical, because such knowledge
allows the defense to prepare strategies to confront damaging evidence at trial, conduct
7
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 12 of 27
investigations to discredit such evidence, or avoid presenting defenses that are undercut
by such evidence. Marshall, 132 F.3d at 68. That is precisely how Mr. Libby intends to
use the information sought from the government here.
Second, the government is forbidden from "engag[ing] in gamesmanship
in discovery matters." Id. at 69. This prohibition means "the government cannot take a
narrow reading of the term `material' in making its decisions on what to disclose under
Rule 16." Safavian, 2005 WL 3529834 at *3. In that vein, the government is not
permitted to avoid its Rule 16 disclosure obligations by attempting to define or limit what
types of defenses are appropriate for the defendant to set forth to counter the charges in
an indictment. Id. (the government may not "put itself in the shoes of defense counsel in
attempting to predict the nature of what the defense may be or what may be material to its
preparation"). Yet, that is exactly what the government is attempting to do here.
B. The Discovery Mr. Libby Has Requested is Material to the Preparation
of His Defense
Applying these standards leads to the inexorable conclusion that the
documents requested by this motion, if in the possession of the United States, must be
disclosed to the defense.
1. The Indictment Places News Reporters' Knowledge About Ms.
Wilson's Employment Status Squarely at Issue
The alleged false statements by Mr. Libby in the indictment consist largely
of characterizations of what journalists knew and were saying prior to the publication of
the Novak column on July 14, 2003 about Ms. Wilson's employment by the CIA.
Consequently, what reporters in fact knew about Ms. Wilson, when they knew such
information, from whom they learned it, and with whom they may have subsequently
8
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 13 of 27
discussed it is material to the preparation of the defense. And such evidence is no less
material if it fails to relate directly to a conversation between Mr. Libby and a news
reporter.
a. Allegations Concerning Tim Russert
The indictment alleges that Mr. Libby falsely stated that Mr. Russert asked
him if he "knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA," and that Mr. Libby falsely
stated that Mr. Russert told him that "all the reporters knew" about Ms. Wilson's
employment status. Accordingly, critical questions for the defense in preparing its case
are whether, prior to July 14, 2003, Mr. Russert may have known from whatever source
that Ms. Wilson was employed by the CIA, and whether it was true that other reporters
knew this information. The government's refusal to turn over the requested documents
undermines the ability of the defense to investigate fully the answers to these questions.
The expected testimony of Mr. Russert illustrates precisely why the
information Mr. Libby seeks in this motion is material to the preparation of the defense
within the meaning of Rule 16. The government presumably expects to call Mr. Russert
at trial to testify that when he spoke with Mr. Libby on or about July 10, he did not ask
Mr. Libby if he "knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA," and did not tell Mr.
Libby "that all the reporters knew it." In response to that testimony Mr. Libby would
have the right, if he elected to do so, to produce testimony to the jury tending to show that
many reporters did know about Ms. Wilson's employment status and that Mr. Russert did
make the statement Mr. Libby allegedly attributed to him, but has forgotten about it.
Accordingly, in light of Mr. Russert's likely testimony, the materiality of the requested
information is indisputable.
9
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 14 of 27
Another issue concerning Mr. Russert's expected testimony which the
defense needs to investigate to examine him effectively at trial is whether any of the NBC
reporters who worked for him were aware of Ms. Wilson's identity prior to July 14,
2003. ^6 If any such NBC reporters knew this information before that time, the defense
would be entitled to gather that information to prepare its cross-examination of Mr.
Russert. Once the defense gets further information about the sources who disclosed Ms.
Wilson's employment status, we can investigate whether these sources were in
communication with any reporters in the NBC Washington bureau prior to July 14, 2003,
or if they talked to other individuals who might have passed this information on to NBC's
Washington reporters.
In this vein, we note that on October 3, 2003, an NBC News reporter who
works with Mr. Russert stated on television that Ms. Wilson's employment by the CIA
was "widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community." (Tr.
CNBC, "Capital Report," Oct. 3, 2003, attached as Ex. B.) Although in public statements
made two years later, she appears to have retracted her original statement, the defense is
entitled to investigate further what she knew about Ms. Wilson's identity and when she
knew it.
In addition, the defense could choose to advance the argument that the
statement that "all the reporters knew" is a factually correct statement that was made to
Mr. Libby, and show that Mr. Libby is simply confused about whether Mr. Russert is the
source of the statement. To build the case that "all the reporters knew," it is essential for
6
Mr. Russert is the NBC News Washington bureau chief, and as such he functions in a
managerial capacity with respect to a number of other NBC reporters.
10
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 15 of 27
the defense to analyze the information in the government's possession regarding what
reporters knew, how they learned it, and with whom they discussed it. Indeed,
information about the persons who disclosed the information in the first place is critical.
Further follow-up may show that these sources relayed information about Ms. Wilson to
other reporters or other persons, who in turn may have told others as part of a chain of
conversations that reached Mr. Libby.
b. Allegations Concerning Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller
Mr. Libby also needs the documents sought by this motion to prepare his
defense to the charges that he lied about his conversations with Mr. Cooper and Ms.
Miller. The indictment alleges that Mr. Libby lied when he said he told Mr. Cooper and
Ms. Miller "that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked
for the CIA." (Indictment, Count One ¶ 32(b), (c).) The defense thus has the right to
investigate and develop evidence showing that other reporters both knew about Ms.
Wilson's employment by the CIA prior to June 14, 2003 and were discussing this fact
with government officials, some of whom in turn may have shared such information with
Mr. Libby. Such evidence would demonstrate that the alleged false statement by Mr.
Libby is factually correct.
The relevance of this information does not hinge on whether or not Mr.
Libby was involved in any such conversations. Mr. Libby talked to dozens of people
each day, many of whom talked to reporters frequently themselves. Mr. Libby may well
have heard what reporters were saying about Ms. Wilson indirectly, through any one of
the many government officials with whom he interacted each day. The defense has a
11
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 16 of 27
right to explore the extent to which reporters were saying that Ms. Wilson worked at the
CIA and to discover to whom they made such statements.
Further, just as the defense may seek to present the argument that Mr.
Libby misrecollected how or from whom he heard information about Ms. Wilson's
identity, the reporters who have provided information to the government may also be
confused about how they learned that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA. That is, they may
have mistakenly attributed statements to Mr. Libby that were in fact made by other
government officials. The defense needs discovery materials about reporters' discussions
with other sources to investigate this possibility.
2. Information About News Reporters' Sources Is Material to the
Preparation of Mr. Libby's Defense
It is necessary for the defense to determine and investigate which
individuals served as sources for journalists who learned about Ms. Wilson's employment
status prior to July 14, 2003. The defense is certainly permitted to conduct an
investigation to ascertain if there are more reporters who knew about Ms. Wilson's
employment status than those identified to us by the government. The identity of the
reporters' sources, and the nature of the sources' conversations with reporters, are
particularly significant to the preparation of the defense.
Obtaining such information will allow the defense to further investigate
and evaluate the accuracy of alleged statements that "all the reporters knew" about Ms.
Wilson's identity and analyze factual allegations that Ms. Wilson's employment status
was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. Once we learn the
names of the reporters' sources, we will attempt to interview them, investigate whether
12
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 17 of 27
they discussed information about Ms. Wilson with anyone else, and evaluate whether to
subpoena them for testimony at trial.
Each source who divulged information concerning Ms. Wilson prior to
July 14, 2003 represents the first link in a potential chain of discussions that the defense
is entitled to investigate. For example, in a recent, post-indictment development, a
Washington Post reporter publicly stated that he learned of Ms. Wilson's employment
well before Mr. Libby is alleged to have disclosed it outside the government, from a
source who has been disclosed to the Special Counsel, but not to Mr. Libby. (Jim
VandeHei & Carol Leonnig, Woodward Was Told of Plame More than Two Years Ago,
WASHINGTON POST, Nov. 16, 2005, at A01, attached as Ex. C.) The same reporter
disclosed that he mentioned this information to another Washington Post reporter, and
that he possibly mentioned it to Mr. Libby. (Id.; Bob Woodward, Testifying in the CIA
Leak Case, WASHINGTON POST, Nov. 16, 2005, at A08, attached as Ex. D.) Such
revelations underscore that when reporters learned of Ms. Wilson's identity from their
sources, those reporters in turn became secondary sources who conveyed information
about Ms. Wilson to other journalists or other government officials. Those government
officials could have passed on what they heard from reporters to Mr. Libby.
The defense is entitled to explore all such primary and secondary sources
as part of a thorough investigation regarding who outside the intelligence community
learned of Ms. Wilson's employment status prior to July 14, 2003, and how widely such
information was spread. Such information bears directly on the accuracy or inaccuracy
of whether "all reporters knew"; whether Mr. Libby "had heard that reporters were saying
13
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 18 of 27
that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA"; and whether Ms. Wilson's employment status
was not well known outside the intelligence community.
3. The Defense Needs the Requested Discovery To Investigate
Whether There Was a Plan to "Punish" Mr. Wilson by Leaking
Information about Ms. Wilson to the Press
Potential witnesses in this case have stated publicly that they believe the
Administration waged a campaign to "punish" Mr. Wilson by leaking his wife's name to
journalists. The government's investigation also pursued this line of inquiry. The
defense needs the requested discovery concerning what government officials other than
Mr. Libby said to reporters about Ms. Wilson to investigate whether such a plot in fact
existed. Documents that assist such an investigation are thus material to the preparation
of the defense for several reasons.
As a threshold matter, if a witness holds the belief that the Administration
leaked Ms. Wilson's name because it sought revenge on Mr. Wilson, it is possible that
witness could be biased against Mr. Libby. The defense must investigate and determine
how to address such potential bias before trial, and must be prepared, if necessary, to
demonstrate the falsity of the accusation that Ms. Wilson's name was leaked for
malicious purposes.
For example, Mr. Cooper, one of the government's key witnesses, has
written articles and made public statements that advance the idea that the Administration
pursued a coordinated effort to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking information about his wife.
On July 17, 2003, Mr. Cooper published an article on Time.com titled "A War on
Wilson?" He suggested in that article that the possibility of such a war against Wilson by
the Administration was supported by interviews with "government officials":
14
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 19 of 27
[S]ome government officials have noted to TIME in
interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert
Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official
who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. These officials have suggested that she was
involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger . . .
(Matthew Cooper, A War on Wilson, Time.com, July 17, 2003, attached as Ex. E.) The
article went on to quote Mr. Wilson as saying that such disclosures constituted "a smear
job." (Id.) Almost a year and a half later, Mr. Cooper elaborated on what he saw as a
"malevolent" plot during a televised interview:
What I was trying to do in my piece in July 2003 . . . was to
point out what the leakers were doing. I was trying to call
attention to it. And I think Novak was in a way kind of a
transmission belt for the leakers, basically repeating their
smears. I was trying to say, hey, they're smearing this guy.
There are some malevolent things going on here. Take a
look.
(Tr. CNN, "Reliable Sources," December 12, 2004, attached as Ex. F.) (Emphasis
added.)
In light of such statements by a key government witness like Mr. Cooper,
whether or not the Administration attempted to smear Mr. Wilson or his wife is certainly
information that is important for the defense to investigate and consider for purposes of
its examination of Mr. Cooper. A belief that Mr. Libby may have been involved in a
coordinated smear campaign relates directly to possible bias. But to decide whether and
how to address such possible bias, the defense must first investigate which persons
disclosed Ms. Wilson's identity, determine their motivations, and finally assess whether
such evidence can reasonably be construed to support accusations of a smear campaign.
Second, whether a plot to harm Mr. Wilson existed is directly relevant to
issues of motive and intent that may arise at trial. The government may well argue that
15
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 20 of 27
Mr. Libby's motive to lie was to avoid discovery of this alleged plot. Should Mr. Libby
take the stand, the prosecution could also seek to cross-examine him about his
motivations for certain of his statements to reporters. In such a scenario, Mr. Libby must
be prepared to deal with challenges to his credibility during the government's cross-
examination, and learning whether a plot to punish Mr. Wilson existed is critical to such
preparation. The defense has a clear obligation to anticipate the government's arguments
regarding Mr. Libby's motivations and credibility and to begin evaluating strategies for
countering such attacks in advance of trial. Without the information requested by this
motion regarding the nature of disclosures about Ms. Wilson to reporters, the defense
cannot complete these crucial tasks. See Marshall, 132 F.3d at 67-68 (evidence must be
disclosed pursuant to Rule 16 if it helps the defense prepare to avoid "potential pitfalls"
and "minefield[s]" at trial).
4. The Requested Discovery is Material to the Defense's
Investigation of Whether Ms. Wilson's Affiliation With the CIA
Was Known Outside the Intelligence Community and Whether
Such Information Was Regarded as Classified
The indictment also puts directly at issue the question of who outside the
intelligence community knew that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA by alleging that this
fact was classified and not "common knowledge outside the intelligence community."
(Indictment, Count One at ¶ 1(f).) The government presumably intends to offer proof in
support of that allegation. Mr. Libby is entitled to contest that proof and offer proof of
his own to the contrary. The defense has the right to show the jury that Ms. Wilson's
identity was common knowledge among certain reporters or other individuals before Mr.
Novak's article was published. Evidence, or information that might lead to evidence,
16
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 21 of 27
tending to contradict an allegation of the indictment is unquestionably evidence that the
government has an obligation to disclose. And if any of that information is contained in
documents, those documents are plainly "material to the preparation of the defense" and
must be disclosed under Rule 16(a)(1)(E).
The nature of conversations between reporters and their sources is
particularly relevant to whether Ms. Wilson's employment status was regarded as
classified. For example, the Washington Post reporter referred to above has stated
publicly that when he testified under oath in this case, he told the government that when
his source mentioned Ms. Wilson, the reference seemed "casual and offhand," and did
not appear "either classified or sensitive." (Bob Woodward, Testifying in the CIA Leak
Case, Ex. D.) The defense is entitled to learn more about this particular conversation,
and to investigate any other such conversations between journalists and individuals who
shared information concerning Ms. Wilson's employment status. For example, it would
certainly be material to the preparation of the defense if the Washington Post reporter's
source told any other reporters or any other individuals the same information about Ms.
Wilson, and in the same casual and offhand manner. If many other individuals in
Washington did not consider Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA classified or even
sensitive, Mr. Libby has the right to learn about these facts as part of preparing his
defense. Similarly, if the converse is true, and certain reporters or government officials
did believe Ms. Wilson's employment status was a well-kept secret, such information is
just as important to the preparation of the defense.
17
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 22 of 27
C. The Government's Cramped Reading of Rule 16 is Wrong
As a Matter of Law
In resisting disclosure, the government has asserted that this is a
prosecution involving "purely obstruction offenses" to which the requested information
concerning news reporters bears little relevance. The government considers information
relating to reporters' knowledge regarding Ms. Wilson's employment status irrelevant to
this case unless such information also refers to Mr. Libby. The government's view of
relevance is both factually and legally wrong.
As we have shown above, the government's claim that Mr. Libby is not
entitled to the documents sought by this motion because they "bear little relevance to the
prosecution of a charge involving purely obstruction offenses" is wrong as a matter of
fact. Such documents are highly relevant to this case as the government has charged it in
the indictment. The prosecution's position is wrong as a matter of law as well. As Judge
Friedman recently pointed out, in complying with its obligations under Rule 16 the
government cannot substitute its own view of what is needed to prepare the defense for
that of the defendant. See Safavian, 2005 WL 3529834 at *3. The documents sought are
material if they will help the defense with trial preparation tasks such as evaluating the
strength of the government's case, investigating possible defenses, finding additional
relevant evidence, and developing strategies to impeach government witnesses. Id. at *4.
It is not up to the government to define Mr. Libby's defenses to the indictment or to
determine what is useful in preparing them.
Indeed, the government recently tried to advance a similarly narrow view
of its obligations under Rule 16 and Brady in Safavian, which also involved charges of
obstruction and false statements. Not surprisingly, the court rejected that view. In that
18
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 23 of 27
case, the defendant was accused of falsely stating to various government officials that a
certain lobbyist had no business with his employer, the General Services Administration
("GSA"). Id. at *1. At the outset of the case, the defendant requested from the
government e-mails and correspondence between associates of the lobbyist concerning
certain GSA projects. Id. at *7. The government refused to produce the requested
documents "largely on the ground that since [the defendant] never saw these e-mails and
other correspondence they could have no bearing on his state of mind when he
communicated with [various government officials], or be otherwise material to any
conceivable defense." Id.
The Court rejected the government's narrow conception of the scope of its
discovery obligations and ordered production of the requested e-mails, stating:
Simply because the e-mails themselves were not sent to or
received by [the defendant] and therefore do not directly
reflect his state of mind, and may or may not be admissible
in evidence at trial, does not mean that they are not material
to the preparation of a defense or that they will be unlikely
to lead to admissible evidence. To the contrary, [the
requested] e-mails . . . may very well include information
helpful to the defendant in finding witnesses or documents
that could support his contention.
Id. Applying this rationale here compels the same result. The government should be
required to produce all documents and information in its possession pertaining to what
reporters knew about Ms. Wilson, and with whom they discussed that knowledge, prior to
July 14, 2003.
19
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 24 of 27
D. Much of the Information Mr. Libby Has Requested Is
Discoverable Under Brady
The government's disclosure obligations do not end with Rule 16. Much
of the discovery sought by this motion is also firmly within the ambit of documents that
must be disclosed under the doctrine set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),
and its progeny.
Information, for example, that tends to show that in fact, as Mr. Libby is
alleged to have stated with respect to Mr. Russert, "all reporters" did know that Ms.
Wilson worked for the CIA is discoverable under Brady. Similarly, information that,
contrary to what is alleged in the indictment, Ms. Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was
indeed common knowledge outside the intelligence community falls within the scope of
Brady. (Indictment, Count One at ¶ 1(f).) The same is true for information that tends to
show that people who knew that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA did not treat that
information as classified.
Under Brady, the government has an affirmative duty to produce any
evidence favorable to the defendant that is material to either guilt or punishment. See
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 674-75 (1985) (the prosecution is required "to
disclose evidence favorable to the accused that, if suppressed, would deprive the
defendant of a fair trial"). Both exculpatory information and evidence that can be used to
impeach the prosecution's witnesses are considered "favorable" under Brady and must be
disclosed by the government. Id. at 676-77; see also Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S.
150, 154-55 (1972); In re Sealed Case No. 99-3096 (Brady Obligations), 185 F.3d 887,
892 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
20
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 25 of 27
The prosecution must produce to the defense not only all favorable
evidence that is admissible, but also all evidence "that is likely to lead to favorable
evidence that would be admissible." Safavian, 2005 WL 3529834 at *5 (quoting United
States v. Sudikoff, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1198-99 (C.D.Cal. 1999)). Just as with Rule 16
disclosure, the government must interpret its Brady obligations broadly. "Where doubt
exists as to the usefulness of the evidence to the defendant, the government must resolve
all such doubts in favor of full disclosure." Id. (citing United States v. Paxson, 861 F.2d
730, 737 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (insufficient for government to provide "niggling excuses" for
its failure to provide potentially exculpatory evidence)). And, in some respects, the
Brady disclosure obligation is broader than Rule 16 because it requires production not
just of documents, but also of information known to prosecutors that is not contained in
documentary evidence.
This motion requires the Court to evaluate the government's Brady
obligations before trial rather than in the post-conviction context, as is more often the
case. Safavian is again particularly instructive. In that decision, the court explained the
materiality standard under Brady that applies to pretrial discovery:
[T]he government must always produce any potentially
exculpatory or otherwise favorable evidence without regard
to how the withholding of such evidence might be viewed--
with the benefit of hindsight--as affecting the outcome of
the trial. The question before trial is not whether the
government thinks that disclosure of the information or
evidence it is considering withholding might change the
outcome of the trial going forward, but whether the
evidence is favorable and therefore must be disclosed. . . .
The only question before (and even during) trial is whether
the evidence at issue may be "favorable to the accused"; if
so, it must be disclosed without regard to whether the
21
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 26 of 27
failure to disclose it likely would affect the outcome of the
upcoming trial.
Id. (citing cases); see also United States v. Edwards, 191 F. Supp. 2d 88, 90 (D.D.C.
2002) (in the pre-trial context, courts "look with disfavor on narrow readings by
prosecutors of the government's obligations under Brady").
E. The Government's Disclosure Obligations Extend to Subpoenas and
Agreements to Limit the Scope of Documents or Testimony by Reporters
Finally, the defense is entitled to discovery of all subpoenas issued to the
press and any agreements the government may have reached with reporters or their
employers to limit the scope of their testimony or the documents they would produce.
The government has agreed to produce such information for the reporters referred to in
the indictment and/or whom it intends to call at trial, but has refused to produce it for
other reporters. This effort by the government to avoid its discovery obligations is based
on the same fundamentally flawed view of materiality that has driven the government's
refusal to provide other discovery from reporters that is not directly connected to Mr.
Libby.
Information about subpoenas and agreements to limit their scope is
discoverable under Rule 16 because it will help the defense ascertain what additional
information must be obtained from news reporters to prepare for trial. The defense needs
to determine whether to issue pretrial subpoenas to journalists or their employers for the
necessary information, and may need to demonstrate that such subpoenas meet the
prerequisites of Rule 17(c). This need is not limited to documents the defense may seek
with respect to Mr. Cooper, Mr. Russert, and Ms. Miller. Although they are the only
reporters identified by name, the indictment refers repeatedly to "all reporters" or
22
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 29-1 Filed 01/26/2006 Page 27 of 27
"reporters" generally, extending the universe of discoverable information beyond Cooper,
Miller and Russert. Further, discovery of such agreements is necessary so the defense
can adequately analyze the witness statements that the government will provide under the
Jencks Act and Rule 26.2.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the request for disclosure of documents and
information should be granted, and an Order entered in the form attached hereto.
January 26, 2006 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Theodore V. Wells, Jr. /s/ Theodore V. Wells, Jr. for _
Theodore V. Wells, Jr. William H. Jeffress, Jr.
(DC Bar No. 468934) (DC Bar No. 041152)
James L. Brochin Alex Bourelly
(DC Bar No. 455456) (DC Bar No. 441422)
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Baker Botts LLP
& Garrison LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
1285 Avenue of the Americas Washington, DC 20004
New York, NY 10019-6064 (202) 639-7751
(212) 373-3089
/s/ Theodore V. Wells, Jr. for _ /s/ Theodore V. Wells, Jr. for _
Joseph A. Tate John D. Cline
Dechert LLP (D.C. Bar No. 403824)
2929 Arch Street Jones Day
Cira Centre 555 California Street, 26th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19104 San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 626-3939
Fax: (415) 875-5700
23
Comments:
<< Home
http://hoganshoes.vox.com/
http://hoganshoes.webs.com/apps/blog/
http://indoblogger.com/coolhogan/
http://indoblogger.com/crazyhogan/
http://indoblogger.com/thankshogan/
http://lovehogan.gather.com/
http://nicehogan.webs.com/apps/blog/
http://scarpe-hogan.webs.com/apps/blog/
http://sevenhogan.gather.com/
http://sharehoganshoes.webs.com/apps/blog/
^_~ ~_^
http://hoganshoes.webs.com/apps/blog/
http://indoblogger.com/coolhogan/
http://indoblogger.com/crazyhogan/
http://indoblogger.com/thankshogan/
http://lovehogan.gather.com/
http://nicehogan.webs.com/apps/blog/
http://scarpe-hogan.webs.com/apps/blog/
http://sevenhogan.gather.com/
http://sharehoganshoes.webs.com/apps/blog/
^_~ ~_^
http://lvhandbags.viviti.com/
http://lvhandbags123.getablog.net/
http://lvhandbags123.livejournal.com/
http://lvladybag.webs.com/apps/blog/
http://lvladybag.xanga.com/weblog/
http://lvladyhandbag.webs.com/apps/blog/
http://lvladyhandbag.xanga.com/weblog/
http://lvsevenbag.webs.com/apps/blog/
http://lvsevenbag.xanga.com/weblog/
http://mein-blog.net/?w=lvhandbags
^_~
http://lvhandbags123.getablog.net/
http://lvhandbags123.livejournal.com/
http://lvladybag.webs.com/apps/blog/
http://lvladybag.xanga.com/weblog/
http://lvladyhandbag.webs.com/apps/blog/
http://lvladyhandbag.xanga.com/weblog/
http://lvsevenbag.webs.com/apps/blog/
http://lvsevenbag.xanga.com/weblog/
http://mein-blog.net/?w=lvhandbags
^_~
http://www.civinova.org/pg/blog/toywatchesale
http://www.civinova.org/pg/blog/toywatchwatch
http://www.civinova.org/pg/blog/ukswisswatches
http://www.civinova.org/pg/blog/watchsame
http://www.civinova.org/pg/blog/watchwtahches
http://www.cuteweblog.com/123pandora/
http://www.cuteweblog.com/watches68/
http://www.cuteweblog.com/watchestimes/
http://www.edisonnation.com/users/afshirtafshirt/blog_entries?page=2
http://www.edisonnation.com/users/againjewellery/blog_entries?page=2
Post a Comment
http://www.civinova.org/pg/blog/toywatchwatch
http://www.civinova.org/pg/blog/ukswisswatches
http://www.civinova.org/pg/blog/watchsame
http://www.civinova.org/pg/blog/watchwtahches
http://www.cuteweblog.com/123pandora/
http://www.cuteweblog.com/watches68/
http://www.cuteweblog.com/watchestimes/
http://www.edisonnation.com/users/afshirtafshirt/blog_entries?page=2
http://www.edisonnation.com/users/againjewellery/blog_entries?page=2
# 3956262567192444580 posted by 
: 11/10/2010 3:26 AM
: 11/10/2010 3:26 AM<< Home
Archives
March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 March 2009 April 2009
