| After US Asked To Ban Public
Inner City Press Filed Opposition Now Judge
Engelmayer Modifies
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Decrypt
- LightRead - Honduras
-
Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
March 10 – For the nearly
concluded trial of accused CIA
leaker Joshua Schulte, US
Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman
asked to have the public and
press excluded from the
courtroom during the testimony
of several witnesses.
In that case
District Judge Paul A. Crotty
scheduled a public hearing on
Berman's request, held on
January 27 before the trial
scheduled to began February 3.
Inner City Press was and has
been there for
both.
But dated
March 6 and only made
available of the weekend was a
request by Assistant US
Attorney Daniel H. Wolf the
same office, asked Judge Paul
A. Engelmayer to close his
courtroom for another
impending trial - with no
proposal of a public hearing
or any opportunity to be heard
by the Press or public. Inner
City Press as it did before
Judge Crotty opposed this
closure.
Here's
from the order proposed by
AUSAs Daniel Wolf, Maurene
Comey and others: "Dear Judge
Engelmayer: "(5) because the
defendant’s immediate family
will be permitted in the
courtroom during the UC’s
testimony, the transcript of
the proceeding will be made
available to the public
shortly after the testimony is
given, and a live audio feed
in another courtroom also will
be provided, the proposed
partial courtroom closure is
no broader than necessary to
protect the UC’s safety and
the integrity of ongoing
investigations."
But it was
broader than necessary. So,
this immediate opposition, to
Judge Engelmayer's Chamber (as
was done with Judge Crotty in
the Schulte case) and cc AUSA
Daniel Wolf, see below and now
Docket Number 343.
Judge
Engelmayer for now said the
transcript has to be available
at no cost in 24 hours - but
how? - and that a reporter can
enter the courtroom during the
"closed" witness sessions. But
live reporting? Watch this
site.
Inner City Press'
opposition: "Re: Press Access
to US v. Andrews, 19 Cr. 131,
including actual same day
access to transcripts and
exhibits, and press access to
the courtroom Dear Judge
Engelmayer:
This concerns the request of
the US Attorney's Office to
"partially" close your
courtroom to the press and
public in the above-caption
case. The request was dated
March 6, but Inner City Press
only became aware of the
request this morning, and
immediately opposes it in the
same fashion - email to
Chambers and deputy to be
filed inthe docket and on ECF
- as it did in January 2020 to
your colleague Judge Paul A.
Crotty on a near-similar
request by the USAO.
This timely
opposition is filed on behalf
ofInner City Press and in my
personal capacity. The
access restrictions are
unacceptable, and go beyond
those requested even in the
Central Intelligence Agency
trial before Judge Crotty, US
v. Schulte, 17 Cr. 548
(PAC). In that
case, the AUSO proposed
allowing thepress into the
courtroom during the closure,
and provided for a continuous
live video feed of the
proceedings, with camera
turned away for certain
witnesses,allow for live
tweeting of the proceeding as
Inner City Press has done. The
AUSO also provided exhibits,
and in some cases transcripts,
in an online file for the
press.
Here, AUSA Wolf's letter does
not propose any press access
to the courtroom during the
proposed "partial"
closures.Live tweeting would
not, apparently, be possible
of any portion of the
proceedings(see, e.g., your
case US v. Jones." 18-cr-834,
at #364, pg 23 (October
17,2019). In that case, Inner
City Press' live-tweeting drew
an "incident report" a copy of
which I have yet to see.) This
hinders reporting. Given that
and the simultaneous US v.
Nejad and US v. Schulte, see
above, provisions must be made
for live-tweeting of this
proceeding.
AUSA
Wolf said the public would
have the transcripts the night
after proceedings - but how?
For hundreds of dollars? That
is not access. He does not
mention access to exhibits, as
Inner City Press advocated for
and has largely obtained in US
v. Schulte, see e.g. its
filings in the docket,
viewable free (not 10 cents a
page) on https://twitter.com/big_cases/status/1232758559408087041
https://www.usatoday.com/documents/6786787-Docket-Annotation/
and https://twitter.com/big_cases/status/1221840965327032323?s=19
The
U.S.Supreme Court has
recognized that reporting by
the news media allows members
ofthe public to monitor the
criminal justice system
without attending proceedings
in person. Richmond
Newspapers, Inc. v Virginia,
448 U.S. at 572-73
(1980). By attending and
reporting on court
proceedings, members of the
press "function[] as
surrogates for the public."
Id. at 573.We ask that this be
placed in the ECF docket and
that these issues be addressed
by Your Honor before the trial
begins." 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 2006-2020 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
