A manager of US plane maker Boeing, who was convicted of child pornography arising from a warrant issued on an unrelated Chinese espionage investigation, is asking the judge to nullify the guilty verdict and grant him a new trial.
A ruling on Keith Gartenlaub's request is expected on Monday from Judge Christina Snyder who is poised to sentence him on the child pornography charges for which prosecutors are asking a jail term of 10 years, reports ABC News.
Gartenlaub, 47, says there is no evidence that he was aware of the pornographic materials or he had accessed the images found in his computer. He also argues that the materials used in his trial were obtained from a warrant on an unrelated investigation of espionage for which he was never charged. Snyder has previously ruled that the warrant was lawful and the evidence legally obtained.
"When law enforcement lawfully obtains evidence of a serious crime, in this case a crime against children, we will pursue further investigation of that crime," the Department of Justice said in a statement.
In 2013, the FBI interviewed Gartenlaub after an article by Wired revealed a resemblance between a new Chinese aircraft, the Xian Y-20, and the Boeing C-17, a military cargo plane, and suggested someone within Boeing may have been passing sensitive technical design data to China, as noted by The Daily Herald Tribune.
The FBI accessed his computers early in 2014 after obtaining a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant. No spying or hacking charges have been brought against him since the search. Instead, he was charged with possession and receipt of child pornography seven months later. He has denied the charges, but a jury convicted him in December, said the Washington Post.
Gartenlaub's case brings to light how broad and exceptional the powers given to government to gather information about suspected terrorists or espionage threats in the name of national security. These powers oftentimes don't have the traditional safeguards for a defendant's rights, leading to prosecution of ordinary criminal cases, evidence for which would have been otherwise ruled as illegally obtained .
Under the Foreign Intelligence surveillance Act (FISA) defendants cannot effectively challenge the warrants that authorized the search or surveillance or the underlying application because they are not allowed to see them on national security grounds.
