SNEPP APPEALS RULING ON BOOK ABOUT VIETNAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80S01268A000500010009-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 21, 2005
• Sequence Number: 9
• Publication Date: November 16, 1978
• Content Type: NSPR

Vnited Press International
wank gyp, Snepp talks, to reporters outside Richmond
ao rt; p his companion, Stephanie Cook, looks on.
eals
A
pp
drk 121"
uh- 19;: oil DO
r- '.By Paul' G. Edwards
RICFoND--The' #W-U.S. Circuit Court of Ap-
p'e s wrestled yesterday with the question of how
fer Ce. ntral.; Intelligence Agency officer Frank
W. Snepp had harmed the government by writing a
bGo;k-mat ,contains no: secrets and came up with con-
tradretory answers.
S."I3istrict Court Judge Oren R. Lewis decided
la spmmer that Snepp violated his contract with
e IA, by publishing "Decent Interval" without
en
aggency approval of the manusr1p. Lewis ordered
hips to .give the government his profits from .the
bkU,00D at the time bf the order-and told him
ndt*to write anything` else about the CIA without
submitting it to the agency first.
1 13.
s*,te appeal of the Lewis decision was being ar-
get-before a three-judge appeals court panel yes-
terday, Judge J. Dickson Phillips .clearly was trou-
bled _by. the government's. admission; that Snepp's
bgoi about the fall of Saigon in .,the Vietnam war
contains no classified information.
} the government conceding that. there has
b n. np divulging of classified information what
ty w are trying to get at here?" Phillips asked.
Justice Department lawyer Robert E. Kopp ar-
gued in his answers to Phillips that "it is irrelevant
thatno classified information is in the book."
Kopp said Snepp should be penalized for failing to
submit his manuscript to the CIA even though ould
secrets were compromised. Ile said Snepp
be treated as an investment trustee who has deliber-
ately mishandled funds committed to his care In a
way that subjected an investor to undue risks. In
such a case, he said, it is .irrelevant whether the in-
vestor suffers, any actual loss.
Snepp's lawyer, American Civil Liberties Union at-
torney Mark H. Lynch, urged the court to reject
Kopp's theory of harmful risk to the government.
"This is not a securities c5e>?' be said in rebuttal.
hiscase Involves informs ion about the workings
otthee government. It goes to 'the core of the free
flow b information that is protected by the First
A en ent. You don't award,damages for activities
prec ed `by the First Amendment without 'a find
in of harm or malice."
during
o
itio
n,
s
judge Lewis, took the unequivocal p
hat "this. is not a First Amendment
d p trial t
t cam;; Ie ruled that Snepp's failure to submit his
bgq for approval caused the CIA `.'irreparable
and, loss". He said .the unauthorized publics
tion "impaired CIA's ability to" gather and protect
Bence
FC1 Director Stanfield Turner and former dtree-
for Wiliam F Colby tesified at the trial that the
1hprized , publication might cause intelligence
sources, including foreign governments, to, distrust
tby.agency's.ability to keep confidences: In their ap-
peal,briefa, Snepp's Iawyers? label this conclusion
eculative. y ,
t,~nvis's peremptory manner of handling the
Snepp case caused controversy at the time of the
tnin1 andformed the :basis for ,part of Snepp'.s ap-
p .Lynch argued briefly that Lewis should have
submitted some, of the issues, to a jury, including
the question of whether the ne by Snepp wh le he
,
two secrecy,, agreements Sill d
was with the CIA.
%erSt agreement explicitly required agency ap-
proival-of books: written by agents and the.,, second
was silent on the -subject. Lynch argued that the
second agreement superseded the first, but .Lewis
raid, ft: did not and that Snepp was, still bound by'
his3it68 agreement, to submit manuscripts for ap-
proval..
Approved For Release , a aW~ ed attorness at
1 oM qU it3lt 1 ~ ?D,
n6t$oth, applies to,? Snepp and commented at one
p6`nt;""It''s almost impossible to resolve."
 WASHflIGTON STAR (GREE"rii LIYIE)
d For Release Ib0M 8aWDP80SO1268A000500010005-9,
" , les'. Fair TITial Takes
I
Kul
ARTICLE APPJi4RED
By Phi] Wechsler specific testimony about the materi-
Spoei.-toThacraahaetowstar als.
NEWARK. N 3. -- In a decision . Despite this dilemma, Lacey said,
pionage if we cannot say at the close of
that could inhibit future es ,,i
prosecutions, a federal judge has these proceedings that the defend-
ruled that the right of a defendant to ants have had a fair trial, then the
a fair trial is paramount to the.na United States and the court have
tional defense interests'af the fallen short of what is required of all-
vernnment. :... r : ;
U.S. District Judge Frederick During the pretrial proceedings
Lacey noted in his opinion yesterday the government as required under
that there is a risk for the governn- criminal law had to furnish the de-
ment in that. it may be forced to- fense photocopies of all documents it
make public disclosures of informa-' ? intended to introduce as evidence.'
Lion it intended to keep secret. ' However. Lacey issued an order
Lacey, however, did point out what': limiting the-defense attorney's -and
he described as the "ironical conflict' not the defendants themselves - ac-
between the rights of a defendant to a cess to the materials.-
fair trial and the rights of the United
States to protect itself against those S?ILZ AIYt)TfIER'.... y, roost
who might want to destrayit_'*.,
"I've ? weighed the matters in the 'of the pretrial proceedings. were held
'scales and conclude that the'defend- in sessions barred to the public and
ant's right to a fair trial must pre-: news media. vail," Lacey said in ? a brief verbal The problems for defendants in an
opinion from the . bench. "I. find it ? espionage case was summed up -by ,
paramount in the constellation- Henry Popper, one of the two attar-1
embedded in the Bill of Rights.", neys for Enger, who contended that
"partial exclusion 'of ..the public
LACEY'S RULING was issued just creates even more prejudice in the
as the prosecution closed its case in-' minds of the jury."
the espionage trial of two Soviet-em..:.'- The problem for the gover'nmetrt.
ployees of the United Nations. The according to. one.. law. enforcement'
defendants, Valdik-A.'Enger'and Ru official, is that "the whole purpose of
dolf P. Chernyayev, are accused' of trying to uncover espionage activi-
paying $20,000 to a double- agent of-- .ties - is to maintain :the secrecy of
the FBI to steal military secrets: these documents. If-we have to open
The constitutional issues were the books to the public.. then what's;
joined yesterday when the prosecu-? the point of classifying. the materi-
tor, U.S.' Attorney Robert Del Tufo,:..'als.".
asked Lacey to: bar the public and. The classified materials in the trial
news media from the court during.. concerned: anti-submarine warfare
specific testimony on the classified- plans that the government. said was
materials allegedly passed to the de-';. passed to the defendants.. But on the!
fendant. ; .;_.::.:... '.: dayl the.. Russians picked' up the''
Del.Ti fo'argned that the materiat~ materials, they were arrested. There!
in this case is of a national security- was-no specific testimony-on other
nature, an&! the?.government. has aclassified materials' that- ;were al-;
right to protect itself against espiaL,,-legedly ? compromised, although the-;
Wage acitvities." ...; ,-: FBI.'s?double agents testified that the:
In espionage cases. the prosecution "Russians had asked them.. to get'
must prove that the documents stolen information on Tricfent. submarines; 1
involved the-national defense, arid'-' jet fighters and other military pro- ,
? .::
thus must call witnesses to offer-, grams.
Precedence U v Secrets
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP80SO1268A000500010009-9
-