▁further ance ▁of ▁this ▁investigation . ▁The ▁resulting ▁evidence ▁obtained ▁was ▁vol umin ous , ▁and ▁various ▁hear ings ▁were ▁held ▁during ▁which ▁the ▁leg ality ▁of ▁the ▁surve ill ance ▁evidence ▁was ▁cont ested . ▁These ▁hear ings ▁were ▁conducted ▁in ▁secret ▁and ▁are ▁se aled . ▁ ▁Gu ess ' ▁defense ▁coun sel ▁could ▁not , ▁by ▁order ▁of ▁the ▁court , ▁disc lose ▁the ▁content ▁of ▁these ▁hear ings ▁to ▁any ▁party ▁not ▁present ▁at ▁the ▁hear ings . ▁Gu ess ▁herself ▁was ▁not ▁allowed ▁at ▁the ▁hear ings ▁and ▁her ▁coun sel ▁could ▁not ▁relate ▁to ▁her ▁what ▁trans p ired ▁at ▁the ▁hear ings . ▁ ▁The ▁secret ▁hearing , ▁where in ▁the ▁court ▁enjo ins ▁all ▁those ▁present ▁from ▁dis clos ing ▁the ▁contents ▁of ▁the ▁hearing ▁and ▁simultaneously ▁ref uses ▁to ▁offer ▁the ▁def endant ▁adm itt ance ▁to ▁the ▁hearing , ▁was ▁un pre ced ented ▁in ▁Canadian ▁law . ▁ ▁Gu ess ▁was ▁never ▁been ▁given ▁an ▁explanation ▁as ▁to ▁why ▁the ▁hear ings ▁were ▁conducted ▁in ▁secret . ▁ ▁Analysis ▁by ▁Harvard ▁Law ▁School ▁The ▁secret ▁proceed ings ▁presented ▁a ▁ple th ora ▁of ▁problems , ▁but ▁two ▁issues ▁in ▁manif ested ▁themselves ▁with ▁a ▁common ▁stra in ▁of ▁argument . ▁ ▁Effect iveness ▁of ▁Coun sel ▁ ▁The ▁court ' s ▁order ▁that ▁M s . ▁Gu ess ' ▁att orney ▁could ▁not ▁share ▁with ▁her ▁the ▁contents ▁of ▁the ▁hear ings ▁imp airs ▁the ▁ability ▁of ▁M s . ▁Gu ess