Armed Conflict Criminal Justice & the Rule of Law Terrorism & Extremism

8/22 Motions Session #4: Docket Clean-up

Raffaela Wakeman, Wells Bennett
Thursday, August 22, 2013, 12:27 PM

The screen comes alive, but not action in the courtroom.  Irritation from the judge, whose ten-minute recess took, well, fifteen. Judge Pohl adds that, simply because an accused intends to attend an afternoon or morning session does not call for an excessive delay.  Ok, back to business, beginning with maybe-sorta-dealt-with-but-not-quite-totally motions to compel discovery.

Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
Brookings

The screen comes alive, but not action in the courtroom.  Irritation from the judge, whose ten-minute recess took, well, fifteen. Judge Pohl adds that, simply because an accused intends to attend an afternoon or morning session does not call for an excessive delay.  Ok, back to business, beginning with maybe-sorta-dealt-with-but-not-quite-totally motions to compel discovery.

Is Ruiz’s motion to compel, under AE032, moot or not?  Not, the lawyer responds, though he cannot explain precisely why in open court.  Us uncleared, CCTV-watching folk nevertheless can glean that Ruiz’s motion might implicate other motions besides AE032.  On this point, a scrupulous J. Connell notes that attorneys have no control over how AE numbers are assigned, and thus cannot forestall what appears to happen these days in court: the parties and bench think narrowly, in terms of AE-numbers, and not broadly, in terms of cross-cutting legal issues.  Some defense filings implicate conditions of confinement, for example, as well as communications and other things.  The scope of the motion ought to control, Connell argues.  The latter’s protestations still don’t address whether, in fact, Ruiz can argue his points in open court; though earlier, it appeared no argument was necessary, it now seems circumstances have changed.  Thus it appears that at some stage, Al-Hawsawi’s lawyer will take up his motion in a classified setting.

The mention of classified stuff prompts discussion of AE052, which concerns . . . something that the prosecution desires to submit to the judge ex parte.  Connell thinks that a discovery motion related to this, AE052D, has been briefed and argued already and thus, like so many motions to compel, is now pending and awaiting decision.  Very well, says the court, who counts up submitted motions, and motions awaiting argument today, tomorrow and Friday.

Ok, onward.

Raffaela Wakeman is a Senior Director at In-Q-Tel. She started her career at the Brookings Institution, where she spent five years conducting research on national security, election reform, and Congress. During this time she was also the Associate Editor of Lawfare. From there, Raffaela practiced law at the U.S. Department of Defense for four years, advising her clients on privacy and surveillance law, cybersecurity, and foreign liaison relationships. She departed DoD in 2019 to join the Majority Staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where she oversaw the Intelligence Community’s science and technology portfolios, cybersecurity, and surveillance activities. She left HPSCI in May 2021 to join IQT. Raffaela received her BS and MS in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2009 and her law degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 2015, where she was recognized for her commitment to public service with the Joyce Chiang Memorial Award. While at the Department of Defense, she was the inaugural recipient of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s General Counsel Award for exhibiting the highest standards of leadership, professional conduct, and integrity.
Wells C. Bennett was Managing Editor of Lawfare and a Fellow in National Security Law at the Brookings Institution. Before coming to Brookings, he was an Associate at Arnold & Porter LLP.

Subscribe to Lawfare