Md. scientist accused of spying eligible for death penalty
By: Freeman Klopott
Examiner Staff Writer
October 28, 2009
A Maryland scientist is eligible for the death penalty because the information he's accused of providing an undercover FBI agent posing as an Israeli spy was so damaging to U.S. security, although prosecutors say he will likely only face up to life in prison.
Stewart Nozette, who was taken into custody on espionage charges last week, was allowed to keep his passport and travel the world despite his pleading guilty to fraud in an unrelated case and an ongoing federal espionage investigation.
The 52-year-old Chevy Chase scientist is accused of accepting $11,000 for providing military technology secrets to an FBI agent posing as an Israeli intelligence officer.
On Tuesday, Washington U.S. Attorney Office spokesman Benjamin Friedman told The Examiner that Nozette is eligible for the death penalty "because of the type of information he turned over." That information included details on "satellites, early warning systems, means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack" and other "major elements of defense strategy," court documents said.
Nozette had top secret security clearance for 20 years as he helped develop the Star Wars missile defense system and other defense technologies.
Historically, prosecutors have not pursued the death penalty for espionage. Intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard turned over 500,000 pages of critical U.S. intelligence to the Israelis and is currently serving a life sentence.
Nozette could face a similar fate with prosecutors saying they expect to ask for life in prison.
Two days before he pleaded guilty to hiding $265,000 from the Internal Revenue Service in January, and more than a month after he was charged, Nozette returned to the United States minus two thumb drives he had taken with him on Jan. 6 to a country not named in court documents.
Prosecutors said in court documents Nozette was allowed to travel so he could provide authorities with information on an ongoing corruption case.
That decision might have been an "operational necessity," said John L. Martin, a former U.S. Department of Justice lawyer who supervised the prosecution of national security offenses for 26 years and now works in the private sector.
"In some circumstances prosecutors might not want someone to leave the country," Martin said. In this case, "someone exercised judgment that it was worth the risk or there was insufficient evidence to arrest him."
