DOJ-OGR-00001293.jpg
750 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court order (page 3)
File Size:
750 KB
Summary
This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:17-cr-02949-MV) from the District of New Mexico, dated February 5, 2021. It discusses the prolonged pretrial custody of a Mr. Robertson due to COVID-19 related court suspensions and details the turnover of his legal defense team. The text also references a motion for release based on Robertson's compromised immune system and the proposal of his father as a custodian.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Robertson | Defendant |
In custody, awaiting trial, requested release due to health concerns.
|
| Johnson, C.J. | Chief Judge |
Issued administrative orders regarding COVID-19 suspensions in D.N.M.
|
| Robertson's Father | Proposed Custodian |
Proposed as third-party custodian for Robertson's release.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court of New Mexico (D.N.M.) |
Jurisdiction where the case is being heard.
|
|
| DOJ |
Indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR.
|
Timeline (4 events)
2020-03-13
2020-07
2021-01
Withdrawal of Robertson's original attorneys.
District of New Mexico
Original Attorneys
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the court proceedings.
|
Relationships (2)
designation of his father as a third-party custodian
attorneys with which he will be going to trial... were appointed in September 2020 and January 2021
Key Quotes (3)
"Mr. Robertson’s trial will now be reset for April 5, 2021"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001293.jpg
Quote #1
"continued pretrial detention posed a risk to his health because his compromised immune system makes him especially vulnerable to serious illness or death from COVID-19"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001293.jpg
Quote #2
"both of his original attorneys withdrew from the case in January of this year"Source
DOJ-OGR-00001293.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,215 characters)
Case 1:17-cr-02949-MV Document 306 Filed 02/05/21 Page 3 of 16
Light of the Coronavirus Outbreak, 20-MC-00004-9 (D.N.M. Mar. 13, 2020) (Johnson, C.J.).
Almost a full year later, jury trials remain suspended in the District of New Mexico. See In the
Matter of: Superseding Administrative Order 20-MC-00004-49, 21-MC-00004-04 (D.N.M. Jan.
15, 2021) (Johnson, C.J.) (continuing the suspension of all civil and criminal jury trials through at
least February 28, 2021).
Almost a full year later, jury trials remain suspended in the District of New Mexico. See In the
Matter of: Superseding Administrative Order 20-MC-00004-49, 21-MC-00004-04 (D.N.M. Jan.
15, 2021) (Johnson, C.J.) (continuing the suspension of all civil and criminal jury trials through at
least February 28, 2021).
In the intervening 11 months, Mr. Robertson has remained in custody. During that time
period, the Court set and then continued several trial dates due to the pandemic, including dates in
December 2020 and February 2021. See, e.g., Doc. 271. Mr. Robertson’s trial will now be reset
for April 5, 2021, and the Court is hopeful that he will finally get his day in court after the extreme
and unprecedented delay he has endured. Complicating matters, however, is the fact that the
pandemic and the resulting passage of time has led to a recent and significant change in Mr.
Robertson’s defense team: both of his original attorneys withdrew from the case in January of this
year. Doc. 295. As a result, the attorneys with which he will be going to trial in two months were
appointed in September 2020 and January 2021. Docs. 197 and 293. Although the Court would
not have granted the appointments if it were not sure that Mr. Robertson’s new attorneys would be
ready for trial this April, they nevertheless face the daunting task of earning their client’s trust,
preparing for trial, and reviewing three years’ worth of litigation in a matter of months.
period, the Court set and then continued several trial dates due to the pandemic, including dates in
December 2020 and February 2021. See, e.g., Doc. 271. Mr. Robertson’s trial will now be reset
for April 5, 2021, and the Court is hopeful that he will finally get his day in court after the extreme
and unprecedented delay he has endured. Complicating matters, however, is the fact that the
pandemic and the resulting passage of time has led to a recent and significant change in Mr.
Robertson’s defense team: both of his original attorneys withdrew from the case in January of this
year. Doc. 295. As a result, the attorneys with which he will be going to trial in two months were
appointed in September 2020 and January 2021. Docs. 197 and 293. Although the Court would
not have granted the appointments if it were not sure that Mr. Robertson’s new attorneys would be
ready for trial this April, they nevertheless face the daunting task of earning their client’s trust,
preparing for trial, and reviewing three years’ worth of litigation in a matter of months.
Mr. Robertson first asked the Court to consider his release in July of last year. Doc. 181.
He argued that his continued pretrial detention posed a risk to his health because his compromised
immune system makes him especially vulnerable to serious illness or death from COVID-19. Id.
at 5. He also argued that there were conditions of release that would satisfy the requirements of
the Bail Reform Act, including the designation of his father as a third-party custodian. Id. at 9–
10. The Court took up the motion at a status conference held on September 11, 2020. It explained
He argued that his continued pretrial detention posed a risk to his health because his compromised
immune system makes him especially vulnerable to serious illness or death from COVID-19. Id.
at 5. He also argued that there were conditions of release that would satisfy the requirements of
the Bail Reform Act, including the designation of his father as a third-party custodian. Id. at 9–
10. The Court took up the motion at a status conference held on September 11, 2020. It explained
3
DOJ-OGR-00001293
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document