Guilty Plea in Jane Doe
Case Was Suspended When Inner City
Press Entered 3 Page Sealing Order
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell
book
BBC -
Honduras
- CIA
Trial book - NY
Mag
EDNY COURTHOUSE,
Nov 1 – There was a US versus
Jane Doe case listed on
October 4, 2022 at noon before
U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York
Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry.
Inner City Press, now covering
EDNY, went to cover it.
There was
no one else in the courtroom
gallery. Judge Irizarry said,
Before I accept your guilty
plea I have to ask a series of
questions --
Then the defense
lawyer, Jeremy Schneider who
Inner City Press has covered
in SDNY most recently in US v.
Raji, said, "May I
approach?"
There followed a
long sidebar, the second part
of which was with a court
reporter. A man
from the prosecutors' table
came and asked Inner City
Press for I.D., which it
provided. In fact, it is
covering the US v. Barrack
(and US v. Zottola and other)
trials in EDNY.
The
sidebar broke up, and they
decided to adjourn the
already-begun guilty plea.
Inner City Press jotted down
the date: November 2, and
intended to attend to cover
it.
But then on
October 26 the EDNY
prosecutors filed a letter:
"Dear Judge Irizarry: A change
of plea hearing is scheduled
for November 2, 2022 at 12:00
p.m. in the above-referenced
matter. The government
respectfully submits in a
separate filing a motion and
proposed order to close the
courtroom for the
above-described proceeding.
For the reasons stated in the
motion, the government
requests that the motion and
any order entered by the Court
be filed under seal."
The motion, and
the reasons given to seal,
were themselves sealed. Judge
Irizarry set a 9:30 am hearing
on November 1. Inner City
Press went, and from the
podium cited Press-Enterprise
II, and after the Court did,
US v. Alcantara.
Afterward the
Court docketed: "Minute Entry
for proceedings held before
Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry:
Public Motion Hearing as to
Jane Doe 22CR269 held on
11/1/2022 re [13] MOTION to
Seal November 2, 2022
Proceeding filed by USA.
Appearances: AUSAs Victor
Zapana and Laura Zuckerwise;
Jeremy Schneider for
Defendant. The Court excused
the defendant's presence for
this hearing. Government and
defense counsel jointly move
for closure for reasons
stated. Statements of
journalist Matthew Russell Lee
of Inner City Press heard in
opposition to closure. The
Court grants the motion for
closure for reasons stated;
written order to be entered.
(Court Reporter Linda
Daneczyk.)"
Then the Order:
"Journalist Mathew [sic]
Russell Lee of Inner City
Press was present at the
hearing and was heard in
opposition to the motion. It
is noted that, after the
hearing, a minute entry was
made on the public docket
memorializing the fact that
the hearing was held along
with the Court’s ruling on the
motion that is formalized by
this Order. Upon due
consideration of the sealed
joint motion by the government
and defendant and the
arguments made in opposition
by Mr. Lee on behalf of the
press and public, the Court
finds that:
1. There is a
substantial probability that
holding a change of plea
hearing in this matter that is
open to the public would
prejudice a compelling
interest of the government in
maintaining the integrity of
significant government
activities entitled to
confidentiality, including an
ongoing investigation of
serious crimes and public
safety, that overrides the
public’s qualified First
Amendment right of access to
such proceedings.
2. No reasonable
alternatives to closure of the
courtroom exist that
adequately can protect the
compelling interests that
would be prejudiced by holding
the proceeding identified
above in public. Accordingly,
pursuant to United States v.
Alcantara, 396 F.3d. 189, 200
n.9 (2d Cir. 2005) and United
States v. John Doe, 63 F.3d
121 (2d Cir. 1995), it is
hereby ORDERED:
1. That the joint
motion to close the courtroom
during the change of plea
hearing to be held in this
case, and to seal the
transcript of said proceeding
along with any other orders or
minute entries related to said
proceeding is GRANTED; and
2. That, in order
to preserve the public’s
qualified First Amendment
right of access to court
proceedings and to tailor the
closure of the courtroom and
sealing of related documents
to minimize their impact on
the public’s qualified First
Amendment right of access: (a)
the government shall disclose
the transcript as required by
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963), Giglio v. United
States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972),
18 U.S.C. § 3500, and/or Rule
16 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, with
advance notice to defendant
and upon obtaining
authorization from this Court
or a court of competent
jurisdiction;
and the
government, as well as the
defendant, shall move this
Court or a court of competent
jurisdiction to unseal the
transcript of the change of
plea proceeding, along with
any orders and minute entries
entered in connection with
said proceeding and to
substitute the defendant’s
true name for “Jane Doe” in
the caption, when the
prejudice to the parties’
interests no longer outweighs
the public’s qualified right
to access.
3. The parties
joint request that this Order
be sealed is denied and it
shall be posted on the public
docket of this case."
At least there's
that. But who decides when "
the
prejudice to
the parties’
interests no
longer
outweighs the
public’s
qualified
right to
access"? Watch
this site -
Inner City
Press is
covering the
EDNY.
Full Order on
DocumentCloud here.
Watch this site.
***
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 2006-2022 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|