Classified evidence plays key role in terror case

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Attorneys representing officers of a now defunct Islamic charity face a challenging list of tasks, including finding an Arabic translator with a high-level security clearance who doesn't already work for the government.

In 2004, federal agents raided Columbia-based Islamic American Relief Agency-U-S-A as part of a criminal investigation. The charity's assets were later frozen.

In March, four men associated with the Columbia charity and a fifth man in the Middle East were indicted on charges that they illegally sent money to Iraq and lied about an affiliate of Osama bin Laden's having worked with the charity.

Lawyers for the defendants learned this week about the extent of the classified evidence.

"I think it will be a logistical nightmare, but I'll withhold judgment until I hear from the government and know more about it," said Jean Paul Bradshaw, a former U.S. attorney in Kansas City.

No trial date has been set, but prosecutors this week requested an indefinite delay, citing the volume of information they must share with defense attorneys.

The prosecution also gave defense attorneys their first glimpse of the security procedures, which include a secure office in the courthouse where defense attorneys and their staff can review classified evidence.

One task facing the men's attorneys includes listening to 80,000 mostly classified telephone conversations -- a task that could take more than a year.

"It appears that the [electronic] intercepts were indiscriminate, so the challenge will be to determine what is important and what is not," said Curtis Woods, who represents Mubarak Hamed, the lead defendant in the case.

Introducing evidence culled from the intercepts also could pose a challenge for defense lawyers. Under a 1980 federal law that governs secret evidence, prosecutors and defense lawyers must agree on summary language on key information.

Failure to reach an agreement leaves the decision in the hands of the judge.

If the judge decides that the information is important for the defense, prosecutors can drop a specific charge, or even the entire prosecution, to prevent exposing the information.