In
#6ix9ine Case Kooda B Sentencing Pushed to
Oct 15 With Another Sealed Letter
By Matthew
Russell Lee,
Patreon Thread Scope
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- Vulture
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
July 8 – Daniel Hernandez
a/k/a Tekashi 6ix9ine was
sentenced to 24 months of
total imprisonment on December
18 in a proceeding live
tweeted by Inner City
Press before U.S. District
Court Judge Paul A.
Engelmayer.
6ix9ine was ordered released
by an Order that at the US'
request Judge Engelmayer
withheld until 4 pm on April
2, analyzed on Patreon here,
2-minute podcast here.
On May 8
#6ix9ine released and World
Star released GOOBA, here.
His proposed $250,000 grant to
a child hunger organization
was rejected by No Kid Hungry.
Then Kooking 4 Kids said it
wanted it. #6ix9ine has been
doing Instagram Live's from
Chicago and elsewhere.
In a
parallel universe in June
Kintea McKenzie a/k/a Kooda B,
who pled guilty then while on
COVID-19 related release was
filmed celebrating without
social distance, on June 3 had
his assigned Criminal Justice
Act lawyer Lisa Scolari
withdraw. Inner City Press
covered and live tweeted the
proceeding, as it will the
sentencing - when it happens.
There was this:
"The Court
adjourns Mr. McKenzie's
sentencing until September 25,
2020 at 10:00 a.m., in
recognition of defense
counsel's request that
sentencing not be held at a
time when traveling to court
may present heightened health
risks to counsel. (Signed by
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on
6/18/2020)."
And now on
September 8, this: SCHEDULING
ORDER as to Kintea McKenzie.
At the defendants request,
reflected in a letter properly
filed under seal, the Court
adjourns sentencing for 30
days, until October 15, 2020
at 10:30 a.m. The Court does
so out of respect for defense
counsels concern that travel
to and from an in-person
sentencing proceeding may
expose counsel and the
defendant to medical risks in
light of the current pandemic.
The Government does not oppose
this request. Mr. McKenzie's
conditions of release remain
in place. In the event of a
request for an additional
adjournment, the Court will
promptly convene a telephone
conference to address the
request and to set a prompt
date for Mr. McKenzie's
surrender. The parties should
consult the Court's Individual
Rules and Practices for
Criminal Cases for
sentencing-related procedures
and practices. Consistent with
the Court's Rules, the
defendants sentencing
submission shall be served two
weeks in advance of the date
set for sentencing. The
Government's sentencing
submission shall be served one
week in advance of the date
set for sentencing. The
parties should provide the
Court with one courtesy hard
copy of each submission when
it is served. If a party does
not intend to file a
substantive sentencing
submission, the party should
file a letter to that effect.
SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge
Paul A. Engelmayer on
9/9/2020)." So, October 15. A
letter sealed in its entirety,
rather than redacted?
On June 8,
Judge Engelmayer issued these
two orders: "ORDER as to
Kintea McKenzie: At a
conference held on June 3,
2020, the Court permitted Lisa
Scolari, Esq., to withdraw as
court-appointed counsel for
defendant Kintea McKenzie,
based on her representation to
the Court that on or about May
15, 2020, she had become aware
of circumstances that
presented a conflict
precluding her continued
representation of Mr.
McKenzie. The Court appointed
Richard Rosenberg, Esq., as
successor counsel. To assure
itself that the nature of Ms.
Scolari's conflict does not
present a basis to invalidate
Mr. McKenzie's guilty plea,
entered in June 2019, the
Court directed Ms. Scolari to
file, for the Court's ex parte
and in camera review, a letter
detailing the circumstances
under which Ms. Scolari
recently had become aware of
the circumstances giving rise
to a conflict. The Court has
reviewed Ms. Scolari's letter
to that effect, dated June 5,
2020, which the Court has
directed Ms. Scolari to file
under seal. The Court is
satisfied that no conflict
existed with respect to Ms.
Scolari's representation of
Mr. McKenzie until mid-May
2020, and that the emergence
of this conflict does not, in
any way, cast doubt on the
viability of Mr. McKenzie's
guilty plea or any other
aspect of Ms. Scolari's
representation of Mr.
McKenzie. (Signed by Judge
Paul A. Engelmayer on
6/8/2020) (ap)"
Then,
minutes later: "ORDER as to
Kintea McKenzie: On June 5,
2020, the Court received a
request, via email, from
Matthew Russell Lee of Inner
City Press, seeking to unseal
filings concerning a conflict
of interest raised by Kintea
McKenzie's now-former counsel,
Lisa Scolari, Esq. Later that
day, the Court received an ex
parte letter, via email, from
Ms. Scolari, explaining the
nature of the conflict of
which she recently had become
aware. The Court has
determined that Ms. Scolari's
ex parte communications relate
to highly confidential facts
about a separate
attorney-client
representation, and thus are
properly not publicly filed.
Accordingly, the Court denies
Mr. Lee's request. (Signed by
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on
6/8/2020) (ap)."
While the
order is appreciated, not
knowing more about these
"highly confidential facts,"
what happened to the
presumption of public access
to filings in criminal cases?
To the idea of redacting
rather than withholding in
full? The logic seems
circular: it is simply "highly
confidential." Why?
Watch this site.
Judge Engelmayer
previous said, "An issue arose
in March, letter of April 6."
Judge Engelmayer:
I expect to grant your request
since you say unwaivable
conflict. However, this
relates to some other legal
representation of yours. Which
predates this one. At some
point some person may claim
you've worked under a
conflict. I want to know more.
Judge Engelmayer
does not order the filing of a
public letter, but one "ex
parte" with him, in camera so
the public will never see.
[Inner City Press
wonders: How does the
presumptive public nature of
Federal criminal cases apply
to this?]
Scolari: I will
take that under consideration.
Judge Engelmayer:
If it is the case that the
information you would share
would case Mr. McKenzie in a
bad light, I could disregard
it. When will you send the
letter? End of the day Friday.
It will be emailed - "We can
take care of submitting it
under seal."
Judge
Engelmayer: I need to
understand why this did not
undermine your prior advice to
Mr. McKenzie during the plea
proceeding. Any order I issue
will not disclose any
confidential material
contained in your letter.
Next CJA lawyer
is Mr. Rosenberg.
Judge Engelmayer:
You have no connection with
Nine Trey?
A: I do not.
Judge Engelmayer:
Do you agree, AUSA Longyear?
AUSA: I do.
Judge: Are you ok
with this Mr. McKenzie?
A: Yes.
But what
is the conflict that existed
at the time of his guilty
plea? Watch this site.
We'll have more
on this - more including order
on Patreon here.
The case is
US v. Jones, 18-cr-834
(Engelmayer). More on Patreon
here.
***
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
|