RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Balancing the needs of defendants and the needs of the state in criminal prosecutions is a difficult task. This same issue is aggravated in prosecutions involving national security or terrorism. The Classified Information Procedures Act (“CIPA”)1 and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”)2 govern the admissibility and use of classified information in criminal trials and obtainment of classified communications, respectively.3 Each presents its own challenges to the adjudicative process for both sides.4 As such, both play an important role in our national security, yet their application to criminal prosecutions can involve the circumvention of civil liberties or due process rights.5 However, both Acts can also burden the government when using intelligence information in criminal cases.6 This article examines both CIPA and FISA within the context of terrorism and national security-related prosecutions. This article also examines the extent to which each Act can be reformed to meet the needs of both sides during the criminal process by presenting what other scholars have recommended along with the major revisions posited here.