FEDERAL COURT,
August 25 --
After
the DC
Circuit's
decision in US
v. Munchel, DDC Judge Amit P.
Mehta
had before him
Capitol breach
defendant Joshua
James.
He also had
video
exhibits
submitted by
DOJ - exhibit
Inner
City Press
has been
denied access
to, as
recently as
August 23.
This denial of
access to DOJ
/ the US
Attorney's
Office for DC
was absurd - only
last week
Inner City
Press after
having to file
a application
was granted
access to
video in US v.
Harrelson.
But when,
citing that
and Judge
Mehta's
Joshua James
order, Inner
City Press
asked for access, it
was told:
"The
judge’s order
limited
dissemination
to the Press
Coalition."
So
Inner City
Press ask wrote
to Judge Mehta,
and the AUSA
and Coalition's fine
pro bono
counsel at Ballard
Spahr:
(full filing
on DocumentCloud here)
"As
previously
noted, DOJ
interprets
your Orders as
ONLY requiring
or even
allowing them
to release
these judicial
documents to
the 'Coalition."'
This seems
absurd, given
the case law
about the
availability
of judicial
documents to
the public,
not to a
subset
thereof.
I received a
response from
your Law
Clerk, saying
to apply under
DDC Local
Criminal Rule
57.6. So:
Interest
in the matter:
Inner City
Press covers
dozens of the
January 6
cases, its
reporting has
been cited in
numerous other
media. There
is no reason
for it to have
access denied
or delayed to
videos this
Court has
provided to
other media
outlets.
Statement
of facts: The
video was used
as a judicial
document in
this Court and
must be made
available, to
all and not
just some.
Specific
prayer for
relief: Make
the video
publicly
available. In
the interim,
instruct the
Office of the
US Attorney to
make it
available.
This is
being emailed
to Chambers,
and the same
AUSA and
defense and
Coalition
counsel, and
should as
before be
docketed: I do
not have
filing
privileges in
DDC, and that
should not be
required for
the press to
have access to
exhibits
released to
other media.
This needless
two-tier
process should
be fixed,
asap. Thank
you."
Judge
Mehta's chambers
docketed Inner
City Press'
application.
Then on
the morning of
August 24,
Judge Mehta
granted the
application
(which should
have been
unnecessary).
On the
afternoon of August
24, DOJ belatedly
/ begrudgingly, it
seems, made
the video
available. And
Inner City
Press immediately published, here.
On
August 5,
Inner City
Press filed a
letter and
motion with
Judge Mehta, on
its
DocumentCloud
here.
On August
16, this:
"Judge Mehta
is in receipt
of your email
requesting
access to the
videos filed
in United
States v.
Harrelson, No.
21-cr-28-10.
Under Standing
Order No.
21-28, in
order for the
court to grant
Inner City
Press access
to the videos
filed in Mr.
Harrelson’s
case, you will
need to file
an application
for access
pursuant to
D.D.C. Local
Criminal Rule
57.6."
That rule provides:
"Any news
organization
or other
interested
person, other
than a party
or a
subpoenaed
witness, who
seeks relief
relating to
any aspect of
proceedings in
a criminal
case... shall
file an
application
for such
relief with
the Court. The
application
shall include
a statement of
the
applicant's
interest in
the matter as
to which
relief is
sought, a
statement of
facts, and a
specific
prayer for
relief."
So,
citing the
Rule, Inner
City Press
filed another
letter, one page,
docketed
here
Now on
August
19, it's been
granted (shouldn't
have been
necessary):
"MINUTE ORDER
as to KENNETH
HARRELSON (10)
granting Inner
City Press's
343
Application
for Access to
Video
Exhibits. The
United States
shall make
available to
Inner City
Press the
video exhibits
entered into
evidence
during the
detention
hearing of
KENNETH
HARRELSON
(10),
consistent
with the
procedures set
forth in
Standing Order
21-28. Inner
City Press is
granted
permission to
record, copy,
download,
retransmit,
and otherwise
further
publish these
video
exhibits.
Signed by
Judge Amit P.
Mehta on
8/19/2021."
So now,
immediately,
put on Inner
City Press'
YouTube, video here
Similarly,
Inner
City Press
asked DOJ and
then Judge
Timothy Kelly
for access to
the videos
that DOJ had
shown to the
court in the
case: judicial
documents
that, under
case law, must
be made
available to
the public. But
it was denied
access, on the
theory that
Judge Kelly's
order earlier
in the month
limited access
to these judicial
documents to a
particular
sub-set of the
public.
Inner
City Press on
July 27 wrote
to Judge
Kelly,
including in
the form of a
motion, now on DocumentCloud, here.
By noon the
next day, July
28, nothing -
no responses,
no response.
We'll
have more on
this. For now,
podcast here;
music video here.
Inner
City Press
live tweeted
Riley June
Williams on
January 25, here.
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com