In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - Source

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Dec 16 -- On March 24 Erick Oleago's lawyer Sabrina Shroff announced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Magistrates Court that a case of Coronavirus had been identified in the MCC jail and 11 North locked down.

On August 12 Oleaga was before SDNY District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on violations of supervised release. Shroff argued that if he were richer he would take a cab to work, and not public transportation.

  But Judge Vyskocil said his many stops were not at subway stations or bodegas. She ordered Oleaga to turn himself in to the U.S. Marshals on August 14 in the morning. After listening to further argument she said, You have my ruling.

 On December 16, Judge Vyskocil held another proceeding in this multi-defendant case. Inner City Press covered it. There was discussion of video evidence; the AUSA said that plea offers had been made but that she understand the logistical difficulties of conveying and discussion them.

  One of the defendant had elected not to waive a conflict by his lawyer, who has thus been replaced, with a Curcio hearing canceled.

At the end, this: Pretrial Conference as to Julio Ozuna, Nazeem Francis, Jonathan Colon, Prince Gaines, Erick Oleaga, Khalil Suggs, Victor Martinez held on 12/16/2020. Next conference scheduled for 2/24/21 at 11am.

 Back on May 4, Shroff wrote to SDNY District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil in rare opposition to an SDNY prosecutor proposed protective order: "Re: United States v. Ozuna 20 cr 213 (MKV) Dear Judge Vyskocil: I write on behalf of Mr. Erick Oleaga, and in opposition to the government's request that the Court enter its proposed protective order. See Docket No. 62. The order as drafted is over broad, and, given the on-going pandemic, makes meaningful review and preparation of defendant’s case difficult, if not impossible. Mr. Oleaga’s 's specific objections are as follows: 1. The defense is unaware of any on-going investigation that would justify or be good cause for such a protective order. As the government has repeatedly stated in open court, it's investigation culminated with the arrests of these defendants. To the extent the court credits the government assertion that it is continuing to investigate (see Proposed Order ¶ 1; Nichols Aff. ¶ 10), this Court should require the government to update the Court at least every three months. See, e.g., United States v. Rahimi, 16 Cr. 760 (RMB)(“[T]he Court further directs that the Government shall undertake good faith review at least every 4 weeks of the documents marked ‘confidential’ and shall advise Defense Counsel (copy to the court) as to whether any such documents may be released from the Protective Order.”). 2. We object to the generic “good cause” language proposed by the government (see Proposed Order ¶ 4), which is the same language it proposed in United States v. Grasso, 20 Cr. 163 (PKC). The defense objected, and the government then removed that language from the final protective order proposed to the Court. The government predicates good cause on speculation that its witnesses may be subject to intimidation or obstruction, or harm to their lives or property, should sensitive material be disseminated to fact witnesses. See Nichols Aff. ¶ 10. However, the government has not articulated to the Court, and the defense is unaware of, any attempts at such intimidation by Mr. Oleaga. Further, the government’s articulated rationale, even if credited, may justify redaction of personal or pedigree information, but no information beyond that.

 3. The pandemic has made what was once easy now impossible. To the extent the Protective Order seeks to preclude the defense from sharing with fact witnesses the discovery provided to us (see Proposed Order ¶¶ 5, 8), we object. To be clear, we do not seek to provide copies of the discovery to fact witnesses, we merely seek to show it and discuss it with fact witnesses.

 4. We object to the government seeking our consent to the Court retaining jurisdiction to the enforcement of the protective order once the case is over. See Proposed Order ¶ 13. Subject matter Jurisdiction cannot be waived, and the government will have ample time before the case ends to enforce the terms of any protective order. I thank the Court for its continued attention to this matter." We hope to have more on this.

 The case is US v. Ozuna, et al., 20-cr-213 (Vyskocil / Cave).  

***

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