| Lael Young Was Indicted By
SDNY But Blanket Protective Order Denied By
Judge Abrams
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- The
Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Sept 18 – Lael Young was
arrested in March on the
charge of being a felon in
possession of ammunition. He
was released on $25,000 bond.
On July 30 he was
indicted on the same charge by
a grand jury ostensibly in
Manhattan. On
August 12 U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of
New York Judge Ronnie Abrams
held an arraignment on the
indictment. Inner City Press
covered it.
An issue that
arose, as it has in other SDNY
cases from US v. Balde
to US v. Schulte,
concerns how many of the grand
juror were actually physically
present.
In this case,
Assistant US Attorney Christy
Slavik that five of the grand
juror appeared virtually, "by
VTC." The issue continues.
Inner City Press asked
Acting US Attorney Attorney
Audrey Strauss if ex-doctor
Robert Hadden was indicted by
a hybrid grand jury...
Now the US
v. Lael Young case has another
cross-cutting issue, which
Inner City Press has covered
for example before SDNY Judge
Paul G. Gardephe, here:
the US Attorney's Office
requesting over-broad
protective orders. From the
September 17 transcript, as
Young's lawyer Sabrina Shroff
put it: "Mr. Young himself is
not under any prohibition from
talking about how his
postarrest statement was
taken. So, for example,
between February and now, if
he had made a movie and put it
on YouTube and said, hey, you
know, I was arrested, they
told me to come down from my
building, I came down, this
cop kind of convinced me or
took me upstairs, and then he
put me in a room, and then he
had me videotaped, they had a
camera situated -- I don't
have the discovery, so I am
just making this all up. From
February until now, Mr. Young
was completely free to talk
about every technique that
that postarrest statement
revealed. A technique in
and of itself is not good
cause and does not rise to a
need for protection. And what
does it matter that it is at
the discovery phase? There is
no exception in the law that
says you don't need to show
good cause at discovery.
And I think Judge Gardephe,
who was a federal prosecutor
for a very long time, noted
that all defense lawyers,
especially institutional
players, like Federal
Defenders and people who are
on the CJA panel, are very
acutely aware that we are not
to post anything on the
Internet. We are not seeking
to give the discovery to The
New York Times. What we are
seeking to do is make sure
that Mr. Young can talk about
his case, show his discovery
to his fact witnesses, to
anybody that he wants to
discuss the case with, and
there is nothing special about
any of these techniques that
are in play that are worthy of
protection under the good
cause element.."
AUSA Christine
Slavik said, "I know in one
recently litigated protective
order in a case -- excuse me,
in a recently litigated case
where a protective order was
litigated, there -- it was a
trigger lock case, I believe,
and the discovery materials
had been produced in state
court without a protective
order. In that case, it seems
to me that the materials had
already been produced, and
therefore a protective order
wouldn't be necessary. I
just wanted to point out that
Judge
Gardephe's opinion
that I believe Ms. Shroff is
referencing --
THE COURT: Yes, I
read
it."
Judge Abrams
said, "I have an obligation to
ensure that the
protection afforded to
discovery information is no
broader than is necessary to
accomplish the proffered goals
of the protective order, and
it seems to me that a blanket
protective order in this case
is simply not necessary.
So I'm going to deny the
motion for a protective
order."
The case is US v.
Young, 20-cr-391 (Abrams)
***
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 2006-2019 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
