against intelligence purposes prohibits use of the statement or its fruits (evidence derived from any statement coerced from the defendant, unless the evidence has been come at instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint). Burden on gov’t. Non-US Foreign nationals who -Reynolds test for Even if could prove DETENTION, Jeppesen P’s (9th Persons allegedly had been Glomar principle: their case on public Dataplan Cir. 2009) abroad transferred in secret to Have procedural documents, allowing foreign countries for requirements for the case to go forward detention and invoking state secrets would still put state interrogation pursuant to privilege been satisfied? secrets at too much risk Interdependent of exposure. “extraordinary rendition” program operated by determination if Central Intelligence information is Agency (CIA) brought privileged action under Alien Tort If can't prove prima Statute (ATS) against facie without restricted company alleged to have evidence, case must be taken part in program. dismissed Relief organizations that ? -No DP violation: CRIMINAL Humanitarian support two FTOs (that statutory terms clear Law Project (SCOTUS engage in humanitarian here in application to 2010) AND terrorist work) P's proposed conduct challenging statute that -Support is not forbids proving those equivalent to freedom
against prohibits use of the statement or its fruits (evidence derived from any statement coerced from the defendant, unless the evidence has been come at instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint). Burden on gov’t. intelligence purposes Jeppesen Dataplan (9th Cir. 2009) Non-US Persons abroad Foreign nationals who allegedly had been transferred in secret to foreign countries for detention and interrogation pursuant to “extraordinary rendition” program operated by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) brought action under Alien Tort Statute (ATS) against company alleged to have taken part in program. -Reynolds test for Glomar principle: Have procedural requirements for invoking state secrets privilege been satisfied? Interdependent determination if information is privileged If can't prove prima facie without restricted evidence, case must be dismissed Even if P’s could prove their case on public documents, allowing the case to go forward would still put state secrets at too much risk of exposure. DETENTION, Humanitarian Law Project (SCOTUS 2010) Relief organizations that support two FTOs (that engage in humanitarian AND terrorist work) challenging statute that forbids proving those ? -No DP violation: statutory terms clear here in application to P's proposed conduct -Support is not equivalent to freedom CRIMINAL
ICTL_Rascoff_Fall_2011_Case_Chart.docx