U.S. V. MORISON

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90M00005R000100120004-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 11, 2013
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: April 13, 1988
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/01/15: CIA-RDP90M00005R000100120004-9
OCA 1167-88
OCA R LE
...
13 April 1988
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence
Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
Executive Director
Director, Intelligence Community Staff
Deputy Director for Administration
Deputy Director for Intelligence
Deputy Director for Operations
Deputy Director. for Science and Technology
Chairman, National Intelligence Council
Inspector General
Director, Office of Congressional Affairs
Comptroller
Director, Public Affairs Office
FROM: Russell J. Bruemmer
General Counsel
SUBJECT: U.S. v. Morison
1. On 1 April 1988, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit unanimously upheld the conviction of Samuel Loring
Morison. Morison was convicted under two provisions of the
Espionage Act for the-.unauthorized transmittal of three classified
satellite photographs to Jane's Defence Weekly, and for the
unauthorized possession and retention of certain secret
intelligence reports. Morison was also convicted for stealing
Government property (i.e., the photographs and the intelligence
reports). Morison did not significantly dispute the essential
facts underlying his conviction on these charges.
2. In its opinion, which is attached for your convenience,
the court found that the Espionage Act could be used to prosecute
a person who "leaks" secret national defense information to the
press, regardless of his motive in doing so. Moreover, the court
found that the Sensitive Compartmented Information nondisclosure
agreement signed by Morison expressly noticed his obligation not
to disclose such information to unauthorized persons in violation
of the provisions of the Espionage Act.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/01/15: CIA-RDP90M00005R000100120004-9
 Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/01/15: CIA-RDP90M00005R000100120004-9
3. The court also found that the photographs and intelligence
reports stolen by Morison were specific, identifiable, tangible
Government property clearly subject to statutory protection from
theft. The court noted that although the recent prosecution of a
Wall Street Journal reporter for the misappropriation of
information, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Carpenter v.
U.S., 108 S.Ct. 316 (1987), has clarified the issue of whether
"pure" information constitutes property which is protected from
theft, it was not necessary for that issue to be faced, in this
case.
4. Since no prior restraint was involved, and the person
prosecuted was a Government employee whose actions were clearly
proscribed by statute, the court did not perceive any First
Amendment rights implicated by such a prosecution. The court
found that the fact that the recipient of the material unlawfully
transmitted by Morison was the press did not provide Morison with
a First Amendment exemption from criminal prosecution for his
otherwise unlawful acts. The court also found no reversible error
in the trial court's various evidentiary rulings.
5. In addition-to the unanimous opinion of the court, two of
the judges wrote concurring opinions. Although Judge Wilkinson's
concurrence indicated that the public interest in protecting the
security of sensitive Government operations trumped the public
interest in informed popular debate in any balancing of First
Amendment interests, nevertheless, he sought to reassure the press
by emphasizing the difficulty of actually prosecuting press
sources. Judge Phillips, in his concurrence, indicated that more
carefully drawn legislation would be a better long-term resolution
of the constitutional issues raised by the broad language of the
Espionage Act.
6. While Morison may attempt to obtain a rehearing en banc,
the United States Attorney for Maryland, who personally handled
the appeal, believes that his chances of obtaining such a
rehearing are slight. It is anticipated that ultimately this case
will be taken to the Supreme Court. However, whether the Supreme
Court will accept certiorari in light of the comprehensiveness of
this unanimous opinion is not at all clear.
7. If you have any questions concerning the Morison case,
please contact me at your convenience. The United States Attorney
for Maryland has taken steps to have the court correct certain
factual inaccuracies contained in the opinion.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/01/15: CIA-RDP90M00005R000100120004-9
 Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/01/15: CIA-RDP90M00005R000100120004-9
N5\\UNITEDSTATESCOIIRTOFAPPFALS
FOR THE* FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 86-5008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
V.
SAMUEL LORING MORISON,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Defendant-Appellant
THE WASHINGTON POST; CBS, INC.;
NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC.;
CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, INC.; TIME, INC.;
NEWSWEEK; U.S.NEWS & WORLD REPORT;
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL; THE NEW YORK
TIMES; THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS; THE
LOS ANGELES TIMES; THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE;
THE BOSTON GLOBE; THE ATLANTA JOURNAL
AND CONSTITUTION; THE MIAMI HERALD; THE
DALLAS MORNING NEWS; THE MINNEAPOLIS
STAR AND TRIBUNE; OTTAWAY NEWSPAPERS, INC.;
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS; NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO;
PULITZER BROADCASTING COMPANY; THE AMERICAN
SOCIETY OF NEWSPAPER EDITORS; THE AMERICAN
NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATIONS; THE
AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS ASSOCIATION, INC.;
ASSOCIATED PRESS MANAGING EDITORS; THE
MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION; THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS; THE
NEWSPAPER GUILD; THE RADIO-TELEVISION
NEWS DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION; THE REPORTERS
COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS; THE
SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AND
PUBLIC CITIZEN; WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION;
THE ALLIED EDUCATION FOUNDATION,
Amici Curiae
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Joseph H. Young, District Judge. (CR-84-
455-Y)
Argued: October 8, 1987 Decided: April 1, 1988
Before RUSSELL, PHILLIPS, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/01/15: CIA-RDP90M00005R000100120004-9