ALEXANDRIA, Va. (CN) - With the government expected to rest its case Wednesday against a suspected source of CIA leaks, the first week of former agent Jeffrey Sterling's trial has yet to involve any direct evidence.
Five days of witness testimony has primarily focused on the operational success and classified nature of "Operation Merlin," a CIA attempt to foil Iran's nuclear program, before New York Times reporter James Risen castigated it as a failure in his 2006 book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration." The government alleges that Sterling gave Risen the information about Operation Merlin, or Classified Program No. 1, in retaliation for losing a racial discrimination lawsuit against the CIA.
The government tried several times over the course of six years to subpoena testimony from Risen on the identity of his anonymous "State of War" source, but Risen adamantly refused to identify any unnamed sources.
Just the week before trial began, the government decided once and for all it would not call Risen to the stand.
Prosecutors on Tuesday produced copies of three classified documents seized from Sterling's home on Oct. 5, 2006. Martha Lutz, chief of the CIA's Litigation Support Unit, served as the government's expert witness to verify the authenticity of these documents, which were passed to jurors under cover sheets with the word "Secret" printed in red block letters.
Possession of classified information outside of secure CIA facilities is not allowed, as many CIA witnesses have testified throughout the trial.
Sterling's defense attorney Edward McMahon could not question Lutz about the specific content of the classified documents, but did manage on cross-examination to have her confirm that the documents referenced rotary phones and were from February 1987, predating Sterling's CIA career or the start of Operation Merlin. One of Sterling's performance reviews was also recovered from his residence, but it was from when he was still a trainee in 1993.
Deleted fragments of emails and a reference to Merlin on a computer's hard drive were also presented as evidence Tuesday afternoon, but neither the government nor its expert computer witness specified where the computer came from or to whom it belonged.
Reju Kurain, an information technology specialist for the FBI, explained to the court that when a person deletes information from the allocated space on a computer hard drive, the information is scattered across the hard drive's unallocated space, but it is not immediately lost. On the computer he analyzed for this investigation, Kurain found one reference to Merlin and some scattered email messages. An email address belonging to Sterling and an email address belonging to James Risen were found in the scattered, deleted information, as well as two one-line messages.
"Can we get together in early January? -Jim"
"I want to call today. I'm trying to write the story. -Jim"
Prosecutor Dennis Fitzpatrick linked the first email to a date in December 2003 that appeared on the hard drive, but Kurain testified that, because deleted information is randomly scattered throughout the drive's unallocated space, there was no way he could say whether one piece of information is connected to another.
In other words, it is uncertain whether Risen's email address, the message signed Jim, Sterling's email address and the Dec. 23, 2003, date were all part of one email file that was deleted. Kurain also acknowledged under McMahon's questioning that keyword searches for "State of War," "fire set" and "New York Times" yielded no results.