Government Seeks Testimony Under Pseudonym in Abu Gayth Case

Speaking of the Sulaiman Abu Gayth case in Judge Lewis Kaplan's courtroom in New York, check out this briefing. The government appears to have sought testimony under a pseudonym from a confidential witness---and been rebuffed by Judge Kaplan. The government's motion was filed on January 31 and asked for the following:

an Order (1) directing that a witness (the “Witness”), who is identified in the Declaration of John P. Cronan, dated January 31, 2014 (the “Cronan Declaration”), may testify under a pseudonym, without revealing his actual name or address in open court; (2) directing the Government, as soon as practicable after entry of the Order, to provide the defense with any material pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3500 and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), that relate to the Witness; (3) precluding defense counsel from further disseminating the Witness’s true name, residence, and any material provided pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3500 and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), to anyone other than members of the defense team, which includes the defendant, co-counsel, paralegals, investigators, translators, litigation support personnel, secretarial staff, and defense experts; (4) precluding courtroom sketch artists from sketching the Witness during his testimony; and (5) allowing the Witness to use non-public entrances and exists for the courtroom and the courthouse.

The government filed this memorandum in support of its motion. The defense filed an opposition, dated on February 11, arguing that "The Government concedes that the requested relief is unusual. Under the facts and circumstances of this witness, to allow such pseudonymous testimony would subvert well-enshrined constitutional principles, and move the course of this trial down the path of a Star Chamber-like sensibility, which we as a nation have abjured since our nation’s earliest days." Judge Kaplan, in a handwritten notation, appears to have rejected the motion two days later. He writes: "Motion denied for the substantially the reasons stated in open court this day." Having not been in open court that day, I can't say what those reasons were. I'd be interested to hear from anyone present.