SECRETS BARRED AS EVIDENCE IN VA. SPY TRIAL

Document Type: 
Collection: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP90-00552R000606240014-0
Release Decision: 
RIPPUB
Original Classification: 
K
Document Page Count: 
1
Document Creation Date: 
December 22, 2016
Document Release Date: 
August 27, 2010
Sequence Number: 
14
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
December 6, 1985
Content Type: 
OPEN SOURCE
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP90-00552R000606240014-0.pdf37.88 KB
Body: 
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/27: CIA-RDP90-00552R000606240014-0 ""-_ 1"'.3 WASHINGTON POST 6 December 1985 Secrets Barred As Evidence In Va. Spy TriaL By Tom Kapsidelis . ,,,,,,,,, IJrrmted Pre, International raw" RICHMOND, Dec. 5-A divided"' federal appeals court ruled today that accused spy Richard Craig Smith cannot introduce certain clas- sified material at his trial in Alex% andria because it would harm the s national interest. The full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of) Appeals, by a 7-to-5 vote, reverse ci1 a position taken earlier by a threev judge panel and threw out a decd sion by U.S. District Judge Richard L. Williams that certain information Smith wanted to introduce was rel- evant and admissible. While the information may have been relevant, the appeals court said, Williams should have accepted the government's contention there should be a "balancing test" be- tween Smith's right to a defense and the government's right to pro- tect sources of national intelligence, Smith, of Bellevue, Wash., wins- indicted last year on five counts of espionage. A former Army Intelli- gence Security Command employe, he is accused of giving the identities of six U.S. double agents to a Soviet intelligence officer for $11,000. He wants to introduce classified information to support his defense that he believed he was working for the CIA when he sold the informa- tion, court papers showed., Rejecting the idea that relevancy, is the only issue, the court said;, "The government has a substantial,_ interest in protecting" intelligence sources and methods. Dissenting judges rejected the vigi that relevant evidence already known" to the defendant should be barred. Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/08/27: CIA-RDP90-00552R000606240014-0