| Ability To
Report On Judge Supervising Defendants
Called Into Question Amid Sealing
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Nov 5 – Much of the time
of Federal judges in the U.S.
court system involves
supervising, and sometimes
remanding, criminal defendants
whom they have previously
sentenced.
So it is in
the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New
York.
While many of the
District Judges only see those
they sentenced if there is an
alleged violation of
supervised release - hence the
statement at sentencing, I
hope I never see you again --
Judge Richard M. Berman is
different.
And Inner City
Press has covered his brand of
supervision, with interest and
not without sympathy.
But apparently
there are problems, with
covering and reporting on this
public proceedings.
On November
5 Judge Berman held a
supervision session with a
defendant Inner City Press has
been asked to leave unnamed.
The proceeding began some 18
minutes late, after some
banter about the current
boarding-up of stores on
Manhattan's Upper East
Side.
But half
way through the actual
proceeding, Judge Berman said
that he hope that the press
that covered the proceeding
would not use any names. The
defense lawyer said he agreed;
the Assistant US Attorney,
whom it seems clear could be
identified, said that while it
was of course an open
proceeding he more or less
agreed. Does his Office?
The
rationale was that medical and
treatment information is
discussed. Fine - Inner City
Press has generally left such
information about of its
reports, expect perhaps once
mentioning Judge Berman's statement
that he would go up to the
Bronx to help take a
supervisee into treatment.
That was laudable
- but apparently, is not to be
reported. Or only without any
names, which takes it out of
the realm of
journalism.
At the
end, Judge Berman asked the
AUSA to be sure to order the
transcript. And, it is true,
the transcripts of these
proceeding are public, part of
the record on PACER, with
names.. It is unclear why then
the press should not report on
these proceedings.
This happened
while Inner City Press is, for
example, seeking
to unseal the sentencing
submission of Peter Bright
a/k/a Doctor Pizza, found
guilty by a jury of seeking to
entice a nine year old girl
into sex. (In fairness, he
says it was just age playing).
The memo's
section "Bright Is Not A
Pedophile" is entirely
redacted. But these are public
proceeding, in which public
funds are spent, and that
potentially impact the
public.
Inner City
Press out of respect for the
request is not including in
this report the name of the
defendants - an amiable person
- nor of his defense attorney.
But it is unclear why. We will
continue on these
issues.
This case we'll
have to call US v. Name Not
Published At Judge's Request,
Blank-CR-Blank (Berman).
***
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
|
,
