FEDERAL COURT,
August 23 --
Months after
the DC
Circuit's
decisions in
US v. Munchel and more
recently
Tanios, on September
23 DDC Judge Trevor
N. McFadden
had before him
Capitol breach
defendant Brandon
Fellows, who
wants to
represent
himself.
Judge
McFadden
agreed to it,
albeit
begrudginly.
Inner City
Press live
tweeted it, here:
Brandon
Fellows wants
to represent
himself. Judge
McFadden
asking if he's
sure. Judge
McFadden: I
find that the
defendant has
knowingly
waived the
right to
counsel. I
will appoint a
stand-by
counsel. Mr.
Fellows, you
wish me to
reconsider the
bond
determination?
Fellows: Yes.
I have motions
and I can make
comments on
them.
Fellows:
If you are
trying to put
in new
evidence, the
Government
will get to
cross-examine.
Are you
seeking to
make just new
legal
arguments? Or
new evidence?
Fellows: Both.
I wrote out a
full response.
Fellows:
Will you allow
me to read out
what I wrote?
Judge
McFadden: Are
you seeking to
testify? I'm
not sure you
need to go
through your
seven minute
speech. AUSA:
I'm the stand
by. We'd like
another day.
Judge
McFadden: How
about October
12 at 2:30 pm?
AUSA:
I have a
Capitol
sentencing at
2. Judge
McFadden:
Capital?
[Like,
possible death
penalty]. Oh,
you mean
Capitol,
January 6. OK,
so 3 pm.
Federal
Defender: I am
concerned
about filing
his motions on
ECF - putting
my name on it
creates
ethical
issues. Judge
McFadden: I'll
order you do
file on ECF.
Mr. Fellows,
you mail them
to the Court
and to her.
Fellows: May I
comment? Or
just wait?
Judge
McFadden:
AUSA, will you
respond by
October 5? I
know you would
be out on
leave. So, the
6th. Hearing
on October 12.
Fellows:
I hold here
mail from
August that I
only got on
9/16. DC mail
is the
opposite of
Amazon Prime.
I am concerned
my motions
will not
arrive. How
about a
courier?
Judge
McFadden: Most
people don't
represent
themselves. I
discourage you
from doing so.
Judge
McFadden: We
do not
encourage
communications
between
defendants in
the DDC jails
and the
courts. That
is done by
their lawyers.
We are
adjourned.
Meanwhile, Inner City Press week-long attempt to gain access to the
videos DOJ used in US v.
Padilla before Judge Bates
has stalled, for now - more to
follow.
On Kenneth
Harrelson 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