Alexandria, VA ---(June 18, 2002) --- The following is a statement by Nina Ginsberg, partner in the law offices of DiMuro, Ginsberg & Mook, P.C. and attorney for Brian Patrick Regan:

"On Friday, June 14, 2002, Defense Counsel filed four motions on behalf of our client, Brian Patrick Regan in the Alexandria Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. These motions are in response to the Government's Notice of Intention to Seek a Sentence of Death, which was filed on April 19, 2002. The Motions filed on Friday by Defense Counsel are as follows:

• "Motion to Strike Government's Notice of Intention to Seek Death Because Seeking Death Here is Arbitrary and Irrational, Thus Violating Eighth Amendment Death Penalty Jurisprudence
• "Motion to Strike the Death Penalty Provisions of the Superceding Indictment as Violative of the Eighth Amendment Prohibition Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment
• "Defendant's Omnibus Motions Concerning The Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 3591 ET SEQ. And the Government's Notice of Intent to Seek a Sentence of Death
• "Motion to Dismiss Counts One and Two on Grounds that 18 U.S.C. 794(a) is Unconstitutionally Vague

"Brian Regan is charged with three counts of attempted espionage and one count of gathering national defense information. Unlike Robert Hanssen who succeeded in providing critical intelligence to a foreign power, was responsible for the deaths of three U.S. informants, and revealed the identities of 50 agents in Russia, Mr. Regan did not identify or endanger the lives of U.S. agents and is charged with only attempting espionage. Yet the government is seeking the death penalty for the first time since capital punishment was authorized for peacetime espionage.

"In the motions, we argue that there have been eleven persons indicted for espionage since 1994 when the federal death penalty was re-enacted. The death penalty was NOT sought in any one of those eleven cases. For example, Douglas Groat received a 5-year sentence. Harold J. Nicholson received a 25-year sentence. Jean Phillippe Wispellaire received a 15-year sentence. And out of a total of eleven cases, only Robert Hanssen received a life sentence. As compared to the eleven spies convicted of actual or attempted espionage, the government's decision to seek the death penalty for Brian Regan is disproportionate to the alleged crime.

"As argued in the motions, selecting Brian Regan for death is also arbitrary and irrational. Recent spies Robert Hanssen, Harold Nicholson and Anna Montes caused dramatically more harm than Mr. Regan allegedly caused. In addition, every other person convicted of espionage since the re-enactment of the federal death penalty has caused grave harm to the national security. Many of these individuals caused significantly more harm than Mr. Regan is alleged to have caused. If the government has its way, Brian Regan will be the first to be considered for execution since 1953, when Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were put to death.

"As pointed out in the motions, the case against Brian Regan was not being prosecuted as a capital case until six months after the original indictment was returned. A statutory notice approved by Attorney General Ashcroft - NOT any action by the grand jury - was the triggering mechanism that transformed this case from an 'ordinary' felony case into a case where the death penalty is a potential punishment. It is doubtful that the grand jurors were ever asked to consider the possibility that a death sentence would be sought in this case, nor asked to pass upon the statutory and constitutional predicates for such a sentence. Under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, it is the province of the grand jury to determine whether any defendant should be subject to a capital penalty.

"Finally, as the motions detail, the defense is requesting that each of the Government's non- statutory aggravators be dismissed based on reasons enumerated in the motions which include constitutional issues, statutory inconsistencies, proportionality of the alleged crime, consistency in the application of laws, and duplication. For example, alleged aggravator #6 - Form Letter Espionage - states that the jury should consider executing Brian Regan because of his alleged attempts to spy for two different countries using a form letter. According to the government, the form letter was modified depending upon which country he was contacting. As the motion suggests, it is difficult to see the rational connection between the use of a form letter and imposition of the death penalty unless the government is alleging that Mr. Regan should be executed for laziness.

"The motions request that the Court (1) Hold the Federal Death Penalty Act unconstitutional; 2) Strike the death penalty notice and proceed as a non-capital case; 3) Strike some or all of the statutory and non-statutory aggravating factors noticed by the government; 4) Require that the government provide a new notice setting forth aggravating factors that are sufficiently limited in their application and sufficiently informative of the underlying facts that they meet the requirement of the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments; 5) Permit Brian Regan the opportunity to file a motion to dismiss to test the factual sufficiency of any new notice; 6) Order the United States to disclose all data in its possession regarding the application of the federal death penalty in the district, region and nation which would permit the Court to review the rationality of the application of the death penalty; or 7) Order the United States to disclose its submission to the Attorney General regarding the application of the death penalty in this case; and 8) Conduct an evidentiary hearing."