UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS -----------------..--.....UNITED STATES, ) v.) )CRIMINAL ACTION ALEXANDER CICCOLO, )NO.15-cr-300 18-MGM a/kJa "Ali AlAmriki," ) )Defendant. ) MEMORANDUMOFLAWIN SUPPORTOFMOTIONOFBOSTONGLOBEMEDIA PARTNERS,LLCFORRECONSIDERATIONOFORDERALLOWINGMOTIONTO SUBSTITUTEEXHIBITANDIN SUPPORTOFMOTIONTOINSPECTANDCOPY EXHIBIT BostonGlobeMediaPartners,LLC,publisheroftheBostonGlobenewspaper(the "Globe"),submitsthismemorandumof lawinsupportof itsmotionforreconsiderationof the Court'sJuly20,2015Order(Docket#19)allowingtheGovernment'sAssented-toMotionto SubstituteExhibit(Docket#18)andinsupportof theGlobe'smotionforleavetoinspectand copy theExhibit in the forminwhichitwasofferedandadmitted attheJuly14,2015 detention hearing.Forthereasonssetforthbelow,thepressandthepublichaveacommonlaw rightof access tothe original exhibit relied upon inthe Court's July14,2015 Detention Order. STATEMENTOFFACTSOnJuly4,2015,thegovernmentfiledanapplicationforacomplaintchargingthe defendantwithbeing afeloninpossession of afirearminviolation of 18U.S.C. 922(g).Dkt. #4.ThedefendantwasarrestedonJuly4,2015,andwastemporarilydetainedpendinga Detention Hearing scheduled for July14,2015.Dkt.#8and#9. TheDetentionHearingoccurredonJuly14,2015,andwasopentothepublic.The government'sExhibit1wasan8-1/2minutevideotapeof portionsof defendant'spost-arrest interview.The docketindicatesthatExhibit1 "was admittedandpublishedwithout objection." Dkt.# 15.TheExhibitshowsthedefendantsittinginthecomer of acubiclebeinginterviewed byalaw enforcementagentabouthisbeliefsaboutISIS.Thegovernmentlaterreleasedtothe DB3! 200345233.1 Case 3:15-cr-30018-MGM Document 33 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 7public a copy of Exhibit 1, but with the defendant's face obscured. Seeexcerpt athttp://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20 15/07 I 14/detention-hearing-slated-this-afternoon-for-mass-terror-suspectltU2gpN09pxDUfojfu8g1 FPIstory.html. During the interview the defendant stated his support for ISIS, including the followingstatements:"Nobody is hurt if they don't fight by, you know, either with their words,meaningpropagandaofanykind, orphysicallyfight.""Mostpeople,ifthey'renotharmingthe Muslimsthen,thenthey won'tbe hurt.""[ISIS is] doingagoodthing...They'reimplementingthe sharia, they'refreeingpeoplefrom oppression. Whereverthey gothey'rechangingthings.""People that you see being executed are criminals. They're criminals. They arethe lowestofthe low.""They don't kill children or women. That's lies. That's lies. That's lies. Theywill do that ifthey fight, ifa woman or a child fights. Even with the children,that'sveryrare, that'saveryrareoccurrence.""The moment that a group ofpeople begins implementing something other thanSharia, theyareenemies.""How can a mere man-made law be better than divine law. It's not evenpossible.""Theykill enemies,they kill oppressors.""WhatI'msayingis, thatthey'veonlykilled peoplethatfightthem."After argument, the Court granted the government's motion for detention. The Court'sDetention Orderdescribed the evidence againstthe defendantas "very strong," and stated that it"consists in large measure ofwords he has spoken or written." Order at 2 (Docket #17). TheCourt also found that the defendant "reaffirmed after being given his Miranda rights that he iscommittedto the goalsofISIL, an internationalterroristorganization...." Id. - 2 -DB3/200345233.1Case 3:15-cr-30018-MGM Document 33 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 7On July 17, 2015, the government filed, with the defendant's assent, its Motion toSubstitute Exhibit. The motion to sought withdraw Exhibit 1 and substitute in its place aredacted version ofthe video in which the defendant'sface is obscured. Themotion stated thatExhibit I had been "improvidently offered" in unredacted form. Motionat I. The governmentalso statedits beliefthat ISILhadrecruitedthedefendantin partthrough videos postedon socialmedia sites and could effectively use an unredacted version of the defendant's post-arreststatement to recruit others. In the government's view, a version ofthe video in which thedefendant'sface is obscured"wouldhave significantly less recruiting value." Motionat 2. TheCourtgrantedtheMotionto SubstituteonJuly20,2015(Docket#19).ARGUMENTA.The Press and the Public Have a Common Law Right of Access to theExhibit."[R]elevant documents which are submitted to, and accepted by, a court ofcompetentjurisdictioninthe courseofadjudicatoryproceedings,becomedocumentsto whichthe [commonlaw] presumption ofpublic access applies." FederalTradeCommissionv.Standard Financial ManagementCorp.,830 F.2d 404, 409 (1stCir. 1987)(recognizingcommonlawright ofaccessto judicial records relied on in adjudicatory proceedings). "Thus, videotapes and audiotapes onwhich a court relies in the determination ofsubstantive rights are within its reach." SeeInre ProvidenceJournalCo.,Inc.,293 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2002). SeegenerallyNixonv.Warner Communications,Inc.,435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (recognizing common law right ofaccess toinspect andcopytrial exhibits). See generally InreGlobeNew!-'paperCo.,729 F.2dat 52 (FirstAmendmentrightofaccessappliesto"pretrialproceedingssettingandmodifyingbail,andtothedocumentsonwhichthebail decisionsare based").Theparty seekingto seal bearstheburdenofpersuasion. Standard Fin.Mgmt.,830 F.2dat 411; seealsoRushfordv.NewYorkerMagazine,Inc.,846 F.2d 249,253 (4th Cir. 1988)."Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure ofjudicial records." Inre KnoxvilleNews-SentinelCo.,723 F.2d470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983). Conclusory assertions ofthe3DB31 200345233.1Case 3:15-cr-30018-MGM Document 33 Filed 08/10/15 Page 3 of 7needforclosurearenotacceptedassurrogatesforhardfacts,anddoubtsaretoberesolvedin favorof publicaceess.ContinentalIllinoisSecuritiesLitigation,732F.2dat1313;Standard Fin.Mgmt.,830F.2d at412;Siedlev.PutnamInvestments.Inc.,147F.3d7,10 (1st Cir.1998). "Theappropriatenessofmakingcourtfilesaccessibleisaccentuatedincaseswherethe governmentisaparty:insuchcircumstances,thepublic'srighttoknowwhattheexecutive branchisaboutcoalesceswiththeconcomitantrightof thecitizenrytoappraisethejudicial branch."Standard Fin.Mgmt.,830 F.2d at410. Applyingtheseprinciples,federalcourtsroutinelyhavegrantedpublicaccessto recordingspresentedasevidenceincriminaltrials.See,e.g.,United Statesv.Sampson,297F. Supp.3d342,346(D.Mass.2003)(finding "'significant publicinterest'inaffordingcitizensan opportunity tocopyaudiorecordings' contemporaneouslywith theintroduction of thetapesinto evidenceinthecourtroom,whenpublicattentionisalertedtotheongoingtrial"')(citation omitted);United Statesv.Criden,648F.2d 814, 822(3d Cir.1981) (public forumvalues "can be fullyvindicated only if the opportunity for personal observation isextended topersons other than thosefewwhocanmanagetoattendthetrialinperson");ValleyBroad.Co.v.UnitedStates Dis!.Court,798F.2d1289,1294(9thCir.1986)(abuseof discretiontodenymediarequestto copyandbroadcastaudioandvideotapesreceivedinevidence).AstheSecondCircuit explained: Though thetranscriptsof thevideotapeshavealreadyprovidedthepublicwithan opportunitytoknowwhatwordswerespoken,thereremainsalegitimateand important interest inaffording members of the public their own opportunity tosee andhearevidencethatrecordstheactivitiesof [thedefendants],aswellas[law enforcementofficers].Andthereisasignificantpublicinterestinaffordingthat opportunity contemporaneously with the introduction of the tapes into evidence in the courtroom, when public attention is alerted to the ongoing triaL InreApplication ofNationalBroadcasting Co.(Myer:,),635F.2d945,952(2dCir.1980).See alsoInreNBC(Jenrette),653F.2d609,620-21(D.C.Cir.1981)(holdingthattrialcourt's denialofaccesstovideoadmittedintoevidencewasanabuseofdiscretion).Compare ProvidenceJournal,293F.3dat17(affirmingdenialof mediarequestforaccesstorecordings DB3/ 200345233.! Case 3:15-cr-30018-MGM Document 33 Filed 08/10/15 Page 4 of 7"that[did]notexistinreadilyreproducibleform"whererequestwouldrequirethe"creationof something not alreadyin existence").! B.The GovernmentHasNot Overcome the Public's Presumption of Access. Thefactualpredicateforthegovernment'smotionwasthatthegovernment"believes" that(l) ISILrecruitedthe defendant"in part" throughvideospostedonsocialmedia sites";and (2)ISILcouldeffectivelyuseanunredactedversionof thedefendant'spost-arreststatementto "recruit others," butavideo inwhich the defendant'sfaceisobscured "would havesignificantly lessrecruitingvalue."MotionatThegovernment'ssubmission,unsupportedbyaffidavit, fallsfarshort of justifyinganorder thateffectivelydeniespublicaccesstoevidenceafterithas been enteredin a case and relied upon ina judicial ruling. Thegovernment doesnotcontendthatsimplydisseminatingthestatementsmadebythe defendantwouldbeaneffectiveterroristrecruitmenttool.Werethatthecase,thedefendant's wordswouldnothavebeen playedin open court,nor wouldthegovernment havemadepublicly available redacted copies of ExhibitI containing the defendant's statements. Thegovernmentalsodoesnotcontendthatallowingthepublictohearthedefendant's ownvoice,toneandmodeof expressioninexpressingsupportforISILwouldbeaneffective recruitmenttool-all of thatalsoisinthepublicdomainintheredactedExhibitreleasedtothe press. ! TheProvidenceJournalCourtreadilyconcludedthattapeswhichhadbeenadmittedinto evidenceweresubject tothepublic's commonlaw right of access.Jd.at16.It noted,however, thatthecasebeforeit(theprosecutionofProvidenceMayor"Buddy"Cianci)containeda "uniquetwist."Jd.at17.Thegovernmenthadnotmerelyplayedindividualtapes,but,rather, hadusedtheSanctionssoftwaretoplay"medleys of sealed excerptsfromtheuniverseof taped materialstoredonitslaptopcomputer."Jd.(emphasisadded)."Asaresult,thereisno electronicmedium--notapeorCD-ROM--currentlyinexistencethatcontainstheprecise medleys of taped excerpts that have been played in open court."Jd.Because the caseinvolved a mediarequestforaccesstomaterials"that[did]notexistinreadilyreproducibleforn1,"the Court refusedto disturbthedistrictcourt's holding that thecommon lawright of access "did not mandatethecreation of somethingnotalreadyinexistence(i.e.,atapeorCD-ROMcontaining only those excerpts played in open court) andfindingreplication infeasible."Jd. - 5-DB3/200345233.1 Case 3:15-cr-30018-MGM Document 33 Filed 08/10/15 Page 5 of 7NordoesthegovernmentcontendthatredactingtheExhibitisnecessarytoprotectthe investigativetechniquesof thelawenforcementofficialwhoquestionedthedefendant,orthe settinginwhichthequestioningoccurred-thosetooareallavailabletothepubliconthe videotape released by the government. ThequestionbeforetheCourt,mshort,iswhethercombiningtheimageofthe defendant'sfacewiththeinformationdescribedabovebyitselfposesacrediblethreatof promotingterroristrecruitmentsufficienttojustifywithdrawingfromthepublicrecordan Exhibit offeredby thegovernment and relied uponbytheCourt inordering a defendant detained withoutbailbeforetrial.Intheabsenceof anyevidentiarysupportforsuchanassertion,the Globerespectfullysubmitsthatthegovernmenthasnotmetitsburdenandthattheoriginal versionof Exhibit1 shouldbereturnedtothecourtfileandmadeavailableforinspectionand .2 copymg. CONCLUSION For theforegoingreasons,theGloberequeststhat theCourt reconsider its Order granting theGovernment's Motion toSubstitute Exhibit and grant theGlobe's motion forleave toinspect andtheexhibit introduced at the July14,2015 detention hearing. 2The defendant's desire toprotect his "privacy" issimilarly insufficient toovercome the public's right of access,particularly given thenon-privatenatureof theimage of defendant'sfaceandthe legitimate publicinterest in the government's allegations against the defendant. - 6-DB3/200345233.1 Case 3:15-cr-30018-MGM Document 33 Filed 08/10/15 Page 6 of 7I Respectfully submitted, BOSTON GLOBE MEDIA PARTNERS, LLC By its attorneys, IslEmma D.Hall Jonathan M.AlbanoBBO #013850 jonathan.albano@morganlewis.com Emma D.Hall BBO #687947 emma.hall@morganlewis.com MORGAN, LEWIS &BOCKIUS, LLP One FederalStreet Boston, MA02110-1726 Phone:617-951-8000 Fax:617-951-8736 Dated:August 7,2015 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,EmmaD.Hall,herebycertifythatthisdocument filedthroughtheECFsystem willbesentelectronicallytotheregisteredparticipantsasidentifiedontheNoticeof Electronic Filing(NEF)andpapercopieswillbesenttothoseindicatedasnon-registeredparticipantson August 7,2015. Is/Emma D.Hall Emma D.Hall DB3! 200345233.1 Case 3:15-cr-30018-MGM Document 33 Filed 08/10/15 Page 7 of 7