 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
WASHINGTON-DEC
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CCL ARHER TBING COMPKK LACK ESPIONQW THAR COST NATIAA |
,,( !' _' 1:
I
DECLARATION OF CHARLES E. WASHiNGTON
Trulock, and I also ~&ccl with him. I mcommcnded among arher tbing~, that the Al be
ch~ed due to a compkk lack of widen=
case of espionqw thar cost our natiaa billion of dollars and dr&ically
. impacred our national &Sense., T~BI DOE cmplaycc w& not prose&&d, ;,7,;:,
,.`."
i:
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
MOTION-TO-SUPPRESS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
UNITED STATES MOTION LEE STARCH COURT REQUIRED PARTICULATIZCD LAW AMERICA DEFENDANT PURSUANT CONSTITUTION SUPPRESS BARCELONA AVENUE WHITE ROCK MEXICO EXHIBIT EVIDENCE FBI PREMISES REASONS EVIDCNCC MEMORANDUM HEREBY SERVING YLQW MAT99 UFLMM YW99 ULW99 |
- -+
i
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
FOR THE DISTRTCT OF NEW MEXICO
rn. `-r?
.Yl, *. I7 ?:i
1JNlTED STATES OF AMERICA,
Pluintiff, ,I'
L,-:
V. Criminal No. 59:14 17 JC/DS .
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIIIENCE
The defendant, Dr. Wen Ho Lee, through his undersigned attorneys, respectfully
moves the Court, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States of Amctica and Fcdcral Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3). to suppress all items
obtained as a result of the search of Dr. TAX'S home located at 80 Barcelona Avenue,
White Rock, New Mexico, pursuant to a search warrant served on or about April 10,
1999 (attached as Exhibit A), a11 fruits of that evidence, and all other evidence, tangible
or intangible, obtained directly or indirectly as a result of that starch.
As grounds for this motion, Dr. Lee states the following:
1. On April 9, 1999, agents of the FBI procured a search warrant which they
served on the premises of SO Barcelona Avenue, White Rock, New Mexico.
2. Dr. Lee was a resident and occupant of the premises, which is his home,
and he had a reasonable espectation of privacy in his home.
3. As a result of the illegal entry into and starch of Dr. Lee's home, the FBI
officers reported that they seized the property described in the starch warrant inventory
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
4. The general warrant the FBI officers used as a justification for their
was not a lawful starch warrant for the following reasons:'
A. The gcncral warrant failed to contain the required particulatizcd
description of the place to be searched.
B. The gcncral warrant failed to contain the required
description of the items the agents were authorized to seize.
c. The general warrant failed to include the required statement
regarding how the property to be seized rclatcd to any alleged
criminal activity.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
MINUTE-ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
UNITED STATES JUDGE STATES DISTRICT COURT MEXICO AMERICA PLAINTIFF LEE PLEAS CHIEF JUDGE JOHN CONWAY DISTRICT JUDGE JAMES PARKER SUBMITTING PLEADINGS |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff (s),
vs. CR NO: 99-1417 JC
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant(s).
M I N U T E O R D E R
Pleas be advised that the above captioned case has been reassigned from Chief Judge John
E Conway to U.S. District Judge James A. Parker.
Kindly reflect this change when submitting further pleadings for this case.
Case Number: CR 99-1417JP
Clerk, U.S. District Court
SNIPPETS:
|
|
4
.
MEMO-OPINION-ORDER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
GOVERNMENT TAPES PARTITION COMPUTER UNITED STATES DEFENDANT COMMUNITY COURT DETENTION REASONABLY ASSURE SAFETY NUCLEAR WEAPONS DETENTION ORDER APPEARANCE RESTRICTED DATA NATION REVOKE MAGISTRATE ACCORDING PARTITION COMPUTER SYSTEM PORTABLE COMPUTER TAPES GOVERNMENT WITNESSES GREEN PARTITION COMPUTER DISTRICT COURT LOS ALAMOS OPEN GREEN PARTITION ATTORNEYS MISSING TAPES BAIL REFORM ACT LANL DIVISION EMPLOYEE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW ME
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
AIJNJOUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEC 3 0 1999
Plaintiff,
V. CR. No. 5&i%@ JC
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On December 17,1999, Defendant Wen Ho Lee ("Dr. Lee") filed "Motion of Wen Ho
Lee to Revoke Magistrate Judge's Detention Order," (Dot. No, 17). After conducting a
day evidentiary hearing and carefully reviewing the applicable law, I conclude that at this
there is no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial release that will
the appearance of Dr. Lee as required and the safety of any other person, the community,
nation. Dr. Lee's motion will, therefore, be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
The Government alleges that in 1993 and 1994 Dr. Lee assembled a collection of
nineteen files, called tape archive (TAR) files, containing secret and confidential
relating to nuclear weapons research, design, construction, and testing. According to the
Government, Dr. Lee gathered these files from the secure classified "red" partition
the Los Alamos National Laboratory ("LANL") and moved them to unclassified open "green"
partition computers. The Government also alleges that Dr. Lee later downloaded seventeen of
the nineteen classified TAR files from the green partition computers to nine portable
SNIPPETS:
|
|
5
.
NOTICE-BAIL-REVIEW
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT CALENDAR COURTROOM DOCKET ATTORNEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT HONORABLE JAMES PARKER LOMAS THIRD FLOOR RIO GRANDE COURTROOM HEREBY CERTIFY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COUNSEL INQUIRIES COURTROOM DEPUTY COURT CALENDAR SERVES DAILY INFORMATION COURT SETTINGS COURT CALENDARING SERVICE PROMPTS JUDGE LEE CUSTODY PLTF GEORGE STAMBOULIDIS DEFT JOHN CLINE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES A. PARKER
United States Courthouse
333 Lomas N.W. - Third Floor - Rio Grande Courtroom
Albuquerque, New Mexico
NOTICE OF HEARING
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2000
I hereby certify that a copy of this calendar was served--via facsimile
mail, or electronic means--to counsel of record as they are shown on the Court's docket.
_________________________________
ROBERT M. MARCH, Clerk
Please direct all inquiries to: Cynthia Blumenthal, Courtroom Deputy (505) 348-2230
THIS COPY OF THE COURT CALENDAR SERVES AS YOUR NOTICE
OF HEARING.
To obtain daily information regarding the status of court settings, please call the Court
(505) 348-2505. Please listen to the prompts to obtain information for Judge Parker's docket.
10:00 BAIL REVIEW
CR 99-01417 JP USA v. Wen Ho Lee (custody)
Attorney for Pltf: George A. Stamboulidis
Laura Fashing
Robert J. Gorence
Attorney for Deft: John D. Cline
Mark Holscher
Nancy Hollander
SNIPPETS:
|
|
6
.
ORDER-SUBSTITUTIONS-2
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CIPA UNITED STATES DISTRICT REQUEST STATES DISTRICT COURT MEXICO AMERICA PLAINTIFF LEE DEFENDANT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROCEDURES INFORMATION PROCEDURES ACT COUNSEL SUBSTITUTIONS RELATING MOTION SUBSTITUTIONS PURSUANT INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM EXTENSION MERIT DEADLINES |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. CR 99-1417 JP
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
ORDER
At the August 15, 2000 Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) § 6(a) hearing,
counsel for the Government requested an additional two weeks to submit further proposed
substitutions relating to the Defendant's First § 5 Notice. See also Government's Motion for
Substitutions Pursuant to CIPA § 6(c)(1) and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed August
14, 2000. I found that request for the two-week extension had merit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Deadlines regarding the Government's proposed substitutions related to the
Defendant's First CIPA § 5 Notice are extended to:
August 28, 2000 Government must propose all substitutions
September 5, 2000 Defendant may file a response to the proposed
substitutions
2. The August 31, 2000 hearing on the proposed substitutions is vacated and a
hearing on the proposed substitutions is rescheduled at 9:00 a.m., September 19,
2000.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SNIPPETS:
|
|
7
.
NOTICE-DISCOVERY
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CUSTODY COURT COURT CALENDAR JUDGE PARKER PLTF DEFT COURTROOM DOCKET ALBUQUERQUE BECKY DURAN-4 TERRI FIELDS-5 KIMBERLY HIMES-6 KENNY LYONS-7 BRIAN MCLEAN-8 ADAM SADLOWSKI-9 RAY VALDEZ-11 BENJAMIN BRANT-12 DENVER CALLOWAY-13 LARRY GOMEZ JERRY DANIEL HERRERA-1 MOTION SEEKING DISCOVERY SECOND NOTICE CIPA LEE GEORGE STAMBOULIDIS ROBERT GORENCE JOHN CLINE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES A. PARKER
United States Courthouse
333 Lomas N.W. - Third Floor - Rio Grande Courtroom
Albuquerque, New Mexico
NOTICE OF HEARING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2000
I hereby certify that a copy of this calendar was served--via facsimile
mail, or electronic means--to counsel of record as they are shown on the Court's docket.
_________________________________
ROBERT M. MARCH, Clerk
Please direct all inquiries to: Cynthia Blumenthal, Courtroom Deputy (505) 348-2230
THIS COPY OF THE COURT CALENDAR SERVES AS YOUR NOTICE
OF HEARING.
To obtain daily information regarding the status of court settings, please call the Court
(505) 348-2505. Please listen to the prompts to obtain information for Judge Parker's docket.
8:30 SENTENCE HEARING
CR 00-00251 JP USA v. Sandra Simone Rice
Attorney for Pltf: Mary L. Higgins
Attorney for Deft: Joseph W. Gandert
PAGE TWO
HEARINGS BEFORE JUDGE PARKER
ON 8-15-00 IN ALBUQUERQUE
9:00 SENTENCE HEARING
CR 99-01053 JP
USA v. Michael Santistevan-1 (custody)
SNIPPETS:
|
|
8
.
ORDER-ASIAN-LAW-CAUCUS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MOTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT ASIAN LAW CAUCUS STATES DISTRICT COURT MEXICO AMERICA PLAINTIFF LEE DEFENDANT INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM SEEKING APPOINTED AMICI CURIAE REQUEST |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. CR 99-1417 JP
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
ORDER
On August 11, 2000, the Asian Law Caucus filed a motion and incorporated memorandum
seeking to be appointed Amici Curiae and to submit an Amicus Curiae brief (Doc. No. 133).
Having considered the matters contained in the motion, I find that it should be granted as to the
request to file an Amicus Curiae brief.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion of the Asian Law Caucus to submit an
Amicus Curiae brief (Doc. No. 133) is granted.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SNIPPETS:
|
|
9
.
ORDER-ACLU-BRIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
UNION MOTION MEXICO UNITED STATES DISTRICT NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AMICI CURIAE SUPPORT DISCOVERY STATES DISTRICT COURT PLAINTIFF LEE DEFENDANT |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. CR 99-1417 JP
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
ORDER
On August 11, 2000, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties
Union of New Mexico, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California filed their
"Motion for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant's Motion for Discovery"
(Doc. No. 132). Having considered the matters contained in the motion, I find that it should be
granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the "Motion for Leave to file Brief of Amici Curiae
in Support of Defendant's Motion for Discovery" (Doc. No. 132) by the American Civil Liberties
Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, and the American Civil Liberties
Union of Northern California is granted.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SNIPPETS:
|
|
10
.
ORDER-RELEASE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MEXICO RESIDENCE UNITED STATES WHITE ROCK BARCELONA AVENUE COURT ATTORNEYS ORDER SETTING CONDITIONS SETTING CONDITIONS PRETRIAL SERVICES LAW ENFORCEMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DISTRICT RENEWED MOTION COMMUNICATIONS DRAFT FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT THIRD-PARTY CUSTODIANS SYLVIA LEE MONITORING EXCEPTION DEPARTURE DEFENDANT TRANSCRIPT PREPARATION UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE PERMIT STATUTORY NATION |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. CR 99-1417 JP
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
ORDER
On July 21, 2000, Defendant filed "Renewed Motion of Dr. Wen Ho Lee For Pretrial
Release" (Doc. No. 114). On August 4, 2000, the Government filed a response opposing
Defendant's motion. At the request of the attorneys, a hearing was scheduled for one-half day on
the morning of Wednesday, August 16, 2000, the earliest date that the lawyers and witnesses
were available and there was an open morning on the court calendar. The parties took
considerably longer than anticipated to present their information to the Court and the hearing
lasted three full days, Wednesday, August 16 through Friday, August 18, 2000. This has delayed
completion of the transcript of the hearing which must be prepared under secured conditions at
the United States Courthouse on weekends and evenings. Likewise, I must read the transcript of
the hearing only in secured conditions at the United States Courthouse. Consequently, it has not
been possible to prepare a Memorandum Opinion, which must be filed with the filing of an Order
Setting Conditions of Release. However, enough of the transcript of the most recent hearing has
been prepared and reviewed by me to permit the announcement of a ruling at this time, prior to
completion and the filing of a Memorandum Opinion and final form of Order Setting Conditions
of Release.
I have concluded that the totality of relevant information made available to me at the
SNIPPETS:
|
|
11
.
ORDER-REVIEW
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
GOVERNMENT REVIEW EXCULPATORY DEFENDANT REVIEWED FILES DETERMINATION GOVERNMENT AGENCIES UNITED STATES DISTRICT LEE COOPERATION CIPA COUNSEL CATAGORIES PROVISION ASSESSMENTS RELIABILITY SYLVIA LEE INCONSISTENT INTENT SECURE FOREIGN NATION MOTIVES DOCUMENTS REFLECTING GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS PURPOSE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROCEDURES INFORMATION PROCEDURES ACT REQUEST |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. Crim. No. 99-1417 JP
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
ORDER
The Court has completed an in camera review of files produced in response to the
Court's Order entered on July 13, 2000 (Doc. No. 107). The Court has determined that the
reviewed files contain certain information that is exculpatory under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
83 (1963). In making this determination the Court was guided by representations by the
Defendant's counsel as to what they believe, based on all information within their knowledge,
would tend to exculpate the Defendant. The Court has determined that the reviewed files contain
the following catagories of exculpatory information:
2. The Defendant's cooperation with and provision of information to Government
agencies;
3. The Government agencies' assessments of cooperation by and reliability of Sylvia Lee
and the Defendant;
4. The Defendant's actions that may be perceived to be inconsistent with an intent to
secure an advantage for a foreign nation; and
5. The Government agencies' conclusions about the Defendant's motives.
Documents reflecting or containing exculpatory information will be identified in a classified list
SNIPPETS:
|
|
12
.
ORDER-DISCOVERY
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT COUNSEL GOVERNMENT REQUEST CIPA MOTION COMPEL DISCOVERY MEDIATOR SELECTIVE PROSECUTION RELEVANCE RESPONSE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION ADMISSIBILITY STANDARD DEADLINE EXPERT SUMMARIES REVIEW CAMERA UNITED STATES LEE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROCEDURES WRITING DISCLOSE FILING SERVING DISTRICT PLAINTIFF INFORMATION PROCEDURES ACT ATTORNEYS CONFER |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. CR 99-1417 JP
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
ORDER
On July 12, 2000 at a Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), 18 U.S.C. App. III,
§ 6(a) hearing and a hearing on Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery on Issues Other than
Selective Prosecution (Doc. No. 62) filed May 10, 2000, Plaintiff was represented by Assistant
United States Attorneys George Stamboulidis, Robert Gorence, Michael Liebman, Sara Criscitelli,
and Laura Fashing; Defendant was present in person and was represented by Attorneys John Cline
and Mark Holscher.
The initial part of the hearing was open to the public. During the public part of the
hearing, the Court requested counsel to confer as soon as possible to select as a mediator or as
mediators, one or more of the distinguished federal judges identified in a letter sent by the Court
to counsel on July 6, 2000 so that mediation can begin as soon as practicable on the subjects of
pretrial release and plea negotiations.
Counsel for the Defendant stated that he intended to request another hearing on release on
conditions. The Court instructed counsel for the Defendant to file a written motion for release on
conditions to which the government may respond in writing. Counsel were encouraged to select a
mediator soon so that mediation efforts regarding release on conditions can begin in advance of
the requested hearing.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
13
.
NOTICE-HEARING-2
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURTROOM DOCKET ATTORNEY HONORABLE JAMES PARKER LOMAS THIRD FLOOR RIO GRANDE COURTROOM CLOSED HEARING HEREBY CERTIFY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COUNSEL INQUIRIES COURTROOM DEPUTY COURT CALENDAR SERVES DAILY INFORMATION COURT SETTINGS COURT CALENDARING SERVICE PROMPTS JUDGE LEE CUSTODY PLTF GEORGE STAMBOULIDIS DEFT JOHN CLINE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES A. PARKER
United States Courthouse
333 Lomas N.W. - Third Floor - Rio Grande Courtroom
Albuquerque, New Mexico
NOTICE OF HEARING
WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2000
CLOSED HEARING
I hereby certify that a copy of this calendar was served--via facsimile
mail, or electronic means--to counsel of record as they are shown on the Court's docket.
_________________________________
ROBERT M. MARCH, Clerk
Please direct all inquiries to: Cynthia Blumenthal, Courtroom Deputy (505) 348-2230
THIS COPY OF THE COURT CALENDAR SERVES AS YOUR NOTICE
OF HEARING.
To obtain daily information regarding the status of court settings, please call the Court
(505) 348-2505. Please listen to the prompts to obtain information for Judge Parker's docket.
10:00 MOTION HEARING
CR 99-01417 JP USA v. Wen Ho Lee (custody)
Attorney for Pltf: George Stamboulidis
Laura Fashing
Robert J. Gorence
Attorney for Deft: John D. Cline
Mark Holscher
Nancy Hollander
SNIPPETS:
|
|
14
.
ORDER-SUPP-BRIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT DEFENDANT MOTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT SUPPRESS REQUESTING MEXICO AMERICA PLAINTIFF LEE FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COUNSEL PERMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ACCORDANCE SCHEDULE SET SERVE SUPPORT GOVERNMENT RESPONSE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. CR 99-1417 JP
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
ORDER
At the hearing on June 26, 2000 of Defendant's motion to suppress, the Court asked
whether the parties wished to submit supplemental briefing on the motion. On June 27, 2000, the
Court received, by facsimile transmission, a letter from counsel for the Defendant requesting an
opportunity to present supplemental briefing. The Court finds the request to be reasonable and
will permit supplemental briefing in accordance with the schedule set forth below.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Not later than July 5, 2000, Defendant may file and serve a copy of a supplemental
brief in support of Defendant's motion to suppress; and
2. The government may file a response to Defendant's supplemental brief by July 10,
2000.
___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SNIPPETS:
|
|
15
.
ORDER-PARTICULARS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PARTICULARS DEFENDANT GOVERNMENT UNITED STATES COURT PLAINTIFF MOTION FOREIGN NATIONS ATTORNEYS COUNSEL SERVE COUNTRIES JOHN CLINE MAXWELL ASSISTANT UNITED STATES STATES ATTORNEYS GEORGE STAMBOULIDIS ROBERT GORENCE LAURA FASHING PARTIES BRIEFS PARTICULARS LISTING SEPARATE CLOSER DEFENDANT OBTAINED INFORMATION VIOLATION SECURE MIND INFORMATION SET |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. CR 99-1417 JP
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
ORDER
On June 26, 2000, at a hearing on Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars (Doc. No. 60),
Defendant was present in person and was represented by attorneys Mark Holscher, Nancy Hollander,
John Cline and K.C. Maxwell; Plaintiff was represented by Assistant United States Attorneys George
Stamboulidis, Robert Gorence and Laura Fashing. After hearing arguments of counsel and having
considered the parties' briefs, the Court ruled that Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars
granted to the extent that by July 5, 2000, counsel for the Plaintiff should file and serve a bill
particulars listing each separate "foreign nation"--as that term is used in 42 U.S.C. §§ 2275 and
that the Government has not ruled out as one of the countries Defendant intended to advantage. The
Government represented that this list would not exceed a dozen countries and would actually be
to half a dozen. The Court determined that the Government may, in its bill of particulars, also
its position that at the time the Defendant obtained information, allegedly in violation of 42
2275 and 2276, he intended to secure an advantage for various foreign nations without, at that time,
having in mind particular foreign nations.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars (Doc. No.
60) is granted to the extent that the Government will be required to file and serve a bill of
July 5, 2000 providing the information set forth above.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
16
.
NOTICE-HEARING-3
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURTROOM DOCKET MOTION ATTORNEY LOMAS THIRD FLOOR RIO FLOOR RIO GRANDE HEREBY CERTIFY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COUNSEL INQUIRIES COURTROOM DEPUTY COURT CALENDAR SERVES DAILY INFORMATION COURT SETTINGS COURT CALENDARING SERVICE PROMPTS JUDGE FIRST MOTION SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BILL PARTICULARS LEE CUSTODY PLTF GEORGE STAMBOULIDIS DEFT JOHN CLINE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES A. PARKER
United States Courthouse
333 Lomas N.W. - Third Floor Rio Grande Courtroom
Albuquerque, New Mexico
NOTICE OF HEARING
MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2000
I hereby certify that a copy of this calendar was served--via facsimile
mail, or electronic means--to counsel of record as they are shown on the Court's docket.
_________________________________
ROBERT M. MARCH, Clerk
Please direct all inquiries to: Cynthia Blumenthal, Courtroom Deputy (505) 348-2230
THIS COPY OF THE COURT CALENDAR SERVES AS YOUR NOTICE
OF HEARING.
To obtain daily information regarding the status of court settings, please call the Court
(505) 348-2505. Please listen to the prompts to obtain information for Judge Parker's docket.
10:00 MOTION HEARING
(Defendant's First Motion to Suppress Evidence and Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars)
CR 99-01417 JP USA v. Wen Ho Lee (custody)
Attorney for Pltf: George Stamboulidis
Laura Fashing
Robert J. Gorence
Attorney for Deft: John D. Cline
Mark Holscher
Nancy Hollander
SNIPPETS:
|
|
17
.
MEMO-OPINION-2
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
UNITED STATES SEARCH WARRANT LEE SPECIAL AGENT LOWE AFFIDAVIT GOVERNMENT EVIDENCE COURT DEFENDANT MOTION UNITED STATES ATTORNEY LAW ASSISTANT UNITED STATES GORENCE SEALED AFFIDAVIT PARTICULARITY DISTRICT COURT TESTIMONY MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEE ARGUES INCORPORATE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PARTICULARITY REQUIREMENT PERSONAL ITEMS PARAGRAPH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZE REFERENCE ROBERT GORENCE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. CR. No. 99-1417 JP
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On June 26, 2000 at a hearing on Defendant Wen Ho Lee's Motion to Suppress, filed
April 17, 2000, (Doc. No. 52), Defendant was present and represented by attorneys Mark
Holscher, Nancy Hollander, John Cline, and K.C. Maxwell; the Government was represented by
Assistant United States Attorneys George Stamboulidis, Robert Gorence, and Laura Fashing.
Having carefully considered the evidence, the law, the briefs, the supplemental briefs, and the
arguments of counsel, I conclude that Defendant Wen Ho Lee's Motion to Suppress should be
denied.
-1-
I. BACKGROUND
Only Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") Special Agent Michael W. Lowe testified at
the hearing. His testimony and the exhibits admitted into evidence at the suppression hearing
established the following facts.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
18
.
ORDER-DEADLINES
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
QUESTIONNAIRES COURT JURY QUESTIONNAIRES SECOND SCHEDULING ORDER PARTIES DEADLINES MOTIONS LIMINE FIRST SCHEDULING ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUNSEL REQUESTED CHANGES SINGLE JURY PARTY PROSPECTIVE JURORS DEFENDANT ENTRY DEADLINES RELATING THIRD SCHEDULING ORDER SUBSEQUENT COURT ORDERS DEADLINES SET CONFER PROPOSED JURY QUESTIONNAIRE OBJECTIONS PROCEEDING PRIOR THEREAFTER RESPONSE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. CR 99-1417 JP
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
THIRD SCHEDULING ORDER
Following entry of the Second Scheduling Order on June 14, 2000, counsel for the parties
requested changes in the deadlines relating to motions in limine and to jury questionnaires. The
Court finds that the parties' requested changes are reasonable and appropriate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. FIRST SCHEDULING ORDER AND SECOND SCHEDULING ORDER:
Except to the extent that deadlines in the First Scheduling Order and in the Second
Scheduling Order are modified by this Third Scheduling Order or subsequent court orders, the
deadlines set in the First Scheduling Order and in the Second Scheduling Order will remain in full
force and effect.
2. JURY QUESTIONNAIRES:
The parties must confer and attempt to agree to a single jury questionnaire to be submitted
to the Court no later than September 7, 2000, but if the parties cannot agree to a single jury
questionnaire, each party must submit its proposed jury questionnaire to the Court no later than
September 7, 2000. Each party must submit its objections to the other party's questionnaire no
later than September 14, 2000. Prospective jurors will be instructed to attend a proceeding at the
courthouse approximately thirty days prior to trial to answer the questionnaires, and the
SNIPPETS:
|
|
19
.
ORDER-DATES
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SCHEDULING SCHEDULING ORDER DISCOVERY CIPA DEFENDANT PARTIES QUESTIONNAIRE COURT COUNSEL SELECTIVE PROSECUTION CONFERENCE DEADLINES CLASSIFIED INFORMATION EVIDENCE JURY FILING INTENDS GOVERNMENT UNITED STATES SECOND SCHEDULING SPEEDY TRIAL ACT PURPOSE RESPONSE LIMINE PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS SET DEADLINES RELATING PARTIES ANTICIPATE SUPPRESS EVIDENCE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. CR 99-1417 JP
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
SECOND SCHEDULING ORDER
At a status conference on June 13, 2000, Plaintiff United States of America was
represented by Assistant United States Attorneys George A. Stamboulidis, Robert J. Gorence,
Paula G. Burnett, and Laura Fashing; Defendant was present in person and was represented by
Attorneys Mark Holscher, Nancy Hollander, John D. Cline, and K.C. Maxwell. This Second
Scheduling Order is being entered based on discussions with counsel during the status conference.
The Court entered the first Scheduling Order on February 17, 2000 after finding that this
case presented complex legal issues and would involve voluminous classified discovery, and that
the Court's standard order regarding discovery and the filing of motions did not afford the parties
adequate time to prepare for pretrial proceedings and the trial itself. The First Scheduling Order
was intended to set deadlines relating primarily to discovery. At the time the First Scheduling
Order was entered, the parties anticipated the necessity of a Second Scheduling Order which
would set deadlines relating to substantive motions, Classified Information Procedures Act
("CIPA") notices, and other miscellaneous filings required before trial.
This case originally was assigned to Chief Judge John Edwards Conway, who set a trial
date of November 6, 2000. On June 5, 2000, Chief Judge Conway recused and vacated the trial
date as well as the then scheduled suppression hearing and CIPA hearing. The status conference
SNIPPETS:
|
|
20
.
ORDER-RECUSE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT MATTER HEREBY JUDGE AMERICA PLAINTIFF LEE DEFENDANT COURT SUA SPONTE RECUSING ABOVE-CAPTIONED MATTER CLERK REASSIGN |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
-vs- No. CR 99-1417 JC
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
ORDER OF RECUSAL
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. I am recusing myself from hearing the
above-captioned matter. The Clerk of Court is hereby instructed to reassign this case to another
District Judge. Further, the hearings scheduled for June 7, 2000, and June 12, 2000, as well as the
trial scheduled for November 6, 2000, are hereby vacated until further notice from the
judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 5th day of June, 2000.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SNIPPETS:
|
|
21
.
ORDER-SUBSTITUTIONS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT CIPA DEFENDANT GOVERNMENT EVIDENCE WITNESSES PARTIES ADMISSIBILITY INTENT PRIOR PUBLICATIONS CROSS-EXAMINATION UNITED STATES CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROCEDURES ACT RESPONSE TAPE DETERMINATIONS SERVE TESTIMONY CODES FLAWS NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUBSTITUTIONS IMPERFECTIONS USER MANUALS INPUT DECKS NUCLEAR WEAPONS BLUEPRINTS NEVADA TEST SITE DEFENSE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs. Crim. No. 99-1417 JP
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
COURT DETERMINATIONS AND ORDER ON FIRST NOTICE OF DR. WEN HO LEE
UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROCEDURES ACT
The First Notice of Dr. Wen Ho Lee Under Section 5 of the Classified Information
Procedures Act (CIPA) was filed on April 24, 2000 (Doc. No. 56). On July 12, 2000, the Court
held a closed hearing on this First §5 Notice in accordance with §6(a) of CIPA. At that time, the
Court ordered the Government to file and serve a written statement as to which information
identified in Defendant's CIPA §5 Notice the Government agrees meets the use, relevance and
admissibility standard of CIPA §6(a). The Defendant was allowed to file and serve a written
response to the Government's statement, if the Government took the position that some of the
information identified by the Defendant does not meet the use, relevance and admissibility
standard of CIPA §6(a). In fact, the Government filed on July 21, 2000 its Supplemental Filing
Concerning Use, Relevance and Admissibility of Classified Information Covered by Defendant's
First Notice Under Section 5 of the Classified Information Procedures Act (Doc. No.116 ) and
the Defendant filed his Response of Dr. Wen Ho Lee to Government's Supplemental Filing
Concerning Use, Relevance, and Admissibility of the Information Covered by the First CIPA §5
Notice (Doc. No.117 ) on July 25, 2000.
In his First CIPA §5 Notice, the Defendant argues that he is entitled to the disclosure of
SNIPPETS:
|
|
22
.
ORDER-HEARING-1
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROCEDURES LEE INFORMATION PROCEDURES ACT DISTRICT COURT MEXICO DEFENDANT MATTER FIRST NOTICE DETERMINATION AMERICA PLAINTIFF SUBMISSIONS RESPONSE GOVERNMENT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY RELEVANCE ADMISSIBILITY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PURSUANT PROCEDURE SET APP RIO GRANDE COURTROOM UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE LOMAS ALBUQUERQUE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
-vs- No. CR 99-1417 JC
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
ORDER AND NOTICE OF HEARING
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the First Notice of Dr. Wen Ho Lee Under Section 5
of the Classified Information Procedures Act, filed April 24, 2000 (Doc. 56). I have thoroughly
reviewed the submissions of the defendant as well as the response of the government. I find that
United States has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to seek a determination concerning the use,
relevance, or admissibility of classified information pursuant to the procedure set forth in
of the Classified Information Procedures Act. See 18 U.S.C. App. III, § 5(a). No determination
having been sought by the United States,
IT IS ORDERED that this matter will come on for hearing on the First Notice of Dr. Wen
Ho Lee Under Section 5 of the Classified Information Procedures Act on Monday, June 12, 2000,
at 9:00 a.m., in the Rio Grande Courtroom of the United States Courthouse, 333 Lomas NW,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
DATED this 22nd day of May, 2000.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SNIPPETS:
|
|
23
.
NOTICE-HEARING-1
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT AMERICA PLAINTIFF LEE DEFENDANT HONORABLE JOHN EDWARDS JOHN EDWARDS CONWAY CHIEF JUDGE HEREBY MOTION SUPPRESS EVIDENCE UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE RIO GRANDE COURTROOM FLOOR LOMAS BOULEVARD ALBUQUERQUE MEXICO COUNSEL DOCKET DAILY INFORMATION COURT SETTINGS COURT CALENDARING SERVICE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
-vs- No. CR
WEN HO LEE,
Defendant.
NOTICE OF HEARING
BY DIRECTION OF THE HONORABLE JOHN EDWARDS CONWAY, CHIEF
JUDGE, notice is hereby given that this case will come on for hearing on Defendant's Motion to
Suppress Evidence, filed April 17, 2000 (Doc. 52), on Wednesday, June 7, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., at
the United States Courthouse, Rio Grande Courtroom (3rd Floor), 333 Lomas Boulevard NW,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
_________________________________________
ROBERT M. MARCH, CLERK
Please direct inquiries to:1 Debra O. Connors, CLA
Courtroom Deputy to Chief Judge Conway
Telephone: (505) 348-2210
A true copy of this notice/order was served--via mail or
electronic means--to counsel of record as they are shown on the Court's docket.
1 To obtain daily information regarding court settings, please call the Court Calendaring
SNIPPETS:
|
|
24
.
MEMO-POINTS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SEARCH WARRANT GENERAL WARRANT AFFIDAVIT CIRCUIT UNITED STATES AGENTS LEE PARTICULARITY EVIDENCE STARCH PURSUANT ILLEGAL GENERAL WARRANT LAW OFFICERS LANGUAGE MATERIALS DISCRETION CONTEMPORANEOUSLY FILED MOTION UNCONSTITUTIONAL GENERAL WARRANT GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTION EXECUTING OFFICERS WEN I-IO LEE DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM CIRCUIT PRECEDENT WELL-CSTABLISHCD PROHIBITION FIRST COPIED INCORRECT UNATTACHED SECRET |
-`. _
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT' d:
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
:
PluintifC l I
1'. Criminal No, !k 1417 JC/DS
WEN I-IO LEE,
Defendant.
ME31ORANDL'M OF POINTS AND AU'I'HORlTIES
The defendant, Dr. Wcn Ho Lee, through his undersigned attorneys, submits this
memorandum of law in support of his contemporaneously filed motion to suppress
evidcncc.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Agents searched Dr. Lsc's home on April lo? 1999, pursuant to an illegal general
warrant. Under binding Tenth Circuit precedent, a warrant is an illegul general warrant
unless it describes with particularity the items to be seized and sets forth that these
particular items arc either the evidence of or fruits of some specified illegal conduct. The
search warrant here blatantly violated this well-cstablishcd prohibition against general
warrants.
lnstcad of describing with particularity all the items to be seized, the starch
wamant here dots not describe with particularity my oft/~ items lo be seized. The search
warrant first copied incorrect boiltrplatc language that referred to an unattached secret
affidavit, The warrant then described the items to bc seized as follows:
"include but are not limited to records, documents and
materials including those used to facilitate communications,
electronic data and computer equipment and periphcmnls . . ."
The warrant contained no limitation on the "records, documents and materials" the
government could s&c from Dr. Let's home. The Tenth Circuit has repeatedly held
unconstitutional warrants that state with far greater specificity the items to be seized.
See. e.g. vv. 836 F.2d 502,600-01 (10th Cir. 1988) (finding
unconstitutional a warrant authorizing agents to seize documents typical of those kept in
SNIPPETS:
|
