DOJ-OGR-00001304.jpg
721 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion
File Size:
721 KB
Summary
This document is page 14 of a court order filed on Feb 6, 2021, in Case 1:17-cr-02949-MV (United States v. Robertson). The Court is rejecting the government's proposed alternatives to release, specifically arguing that interview rooms with 'screens' at the Santa Fe courthouse or jail are inadequate for effective trial preparation because attorneys cannot sit next to the defendant, Mr. Robertson, to review documents. The Court also scolds the government for presenting these alternatives too late, noting they should have been raised before the unfavorable ruling.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Robertson | Defendant |
Subject of the release decision and motion for reconsideration.
|
| Attorneys/Defense Team | Legal Counsel |
Representing Mr. Robertson; seeking to meet with him without barriers.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Marshal’s Service |
Provided information regarding courthouse interview room availability.
|
|
| Santa Fe jail |
Willing to provide exception for in-person attorney visits.
|
|
| The Court |
The judicial body issuing the decision.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Detention facility mentioned regarding visitation policies.
|
|
|
Location of the interview room.
|
|
|
Mentioned as a location that dictates the availability of the interview room.
|
Relationships (1)
Reference to 'his attorneys' and 'defense team'.
Key Quotes (3)
"There is a screen in the interview room, which will allow for appropriate social distancing between [Mr. Robertson] and his lawyers."Source
DOJ-OGR-00001304.jpg
Quote #1
"A motion for reconsideration is for presenting new evidence that was “previously unavailable.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001304.jpg
Quote #2
"For all of the reasons set forth above, the defense team cannot effectively prepare for trial if they cannot sit next to Mr. Robertson and go over documents"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001304.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,115 characters)
Case 1:17-cr-02949-MV Document 308 Filed 02/06/21 Page 14 of 16
decision. First, the government represents that, per the United States Marshal’s Service, “the
interview room at the courthouse can be made available for [Mr. Robertson] to meet with his
attorneys to prepare for trial, for unlimited meetings and unlimited durations of meetings during
business hours, excepting only times when the Aspen courtroom is in use.” Doc. 298 at 2. There
is a catch, however: “There is a screen in the interview room, which will allow for appropriate
social distancing between [Mr. Robertson] and his lawyers.” Id. Second, the government
represents that “the Santa Fe jail is willing to provide an exception to the policy barring in-person
attorney visits, and will work to accommodate in-person visits between Robertson and his
attorneys.” Id.
interview room at the courthouse can be made available for [Mr. Robertson] to meet with his
attorneys to prepare for trial, for unlimited meetings and unlimited durations of meetings during
business hours, excepting only times when the Aspen courtroom is in use.” Doc. 298 at 2. There
is a catch, however: “There is a screen in the interview room, which will allow for appropriate
social distancing between [Mr. Robertson] and his lawyers.” Id. Second, the government
represents that “the Santa Fe jail is willing to provide an exception to the policy barring in-person
attorney visits, and will work to accommodate in-person visits between Robertson and his
attorneys.” Id.
While the Court appreciates the government’s effort in gathering information on these
alternatives, they do not change its decision on release. First, the Court notes that the government
could have, and should have, presented this information earlier if it wanted the Court to rely on
these alternatives to deny release. Mr. Robertson filed his motion for reconsideration on December
21, 2020. Doc. 274. The government had a month and a half to investigate alternatives and make
its argument against release. It cannot wait until an unfavorable ruling to present additional
evidence that it was capable of presenting in the first instance. A motion for reconsideration is
for presenting new evidence that was “previously unavailable.” Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d
at 1012.
alternatives, they do not change its decision on release. First, the Court notes that the government
could have, and should have, presented this information earlier if it wanted the Court to rely on
these alternatives to deny release. Mr. Robertson filed his motion for reconsideration on December
21, 2020. Doc. 274. The government had a month and a half to investigate alternatives and make
its argument against release. It cannot wait until an unfavorable ruling to present additional
evidence that it was capable of presenting in the first instance. A motion for reconsideration is
for presenting new evidence that was “previously unavailable.” Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d
at 1012.
Second, the proposed alternatives are inadequate to address the trial preparation concerns
the Court has articulated. The proposal to use the interview room at the Santa Fe courthouse is
inadequate because the room, by the government’s own description, will still contain a “screen”
between Mr. Robertson and his attorneys. For all of the reasons set forth above, the defense team
cannot effectively prepare for trial if they cannot sit next to Mr. Robertson and go over documents
the Court has articulated. The proposal to use the interview room at the Santa Fe courthouse is
inadequate because the room, by the government’s own description, will still contain a “screen”
between Mr. Robertson and his attorneys. For all of the reasons set forth above, the defense team
cannot effectively prepare for trial if they cannot sit next to Mr. Robertson and go over documents
14
DOJ-OGR-00001304
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document