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

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Podcast Song Filing  II Video Podcast
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

FEDERAL COURT, Oct 7 -- Months after the DC Circuit's decisions in US v. Munchel, on Ocotber 7 DDC Judge Paul L. Friedman had before him Capitol breach defendant Christopher Wangaris. At issue was DOJ's protective order limiting how Capitol videos can be used by defendants. Inner City Press live tweeted here, podcast here

 AUSA: The defendant cannot use the video, only stills. Once it's used in a hearing, it's a judicial document and becomes public. [Then why is the US v. Padilla video before Judge Bates only given to a select group? This is a scam.]

 From the Wangaris status report: "The parties have met and conferred in an attempt to reach an agreement on a proposed protective order... the parties are unable to reach agreement on the Government’s proposed order.

Wangaris status report con't: "The primary dispute rests with the Government’s designation of internal Capitol security video that the Government will designate as “highly sensitive” once the current proposed protective order is entered." What is so sensitive?

Wangaris' lawyer: The government gets to use whatever video they want. But we on the defense can only use screen shots, or we have to ask the government for permission. It creates an inequity. The parties are to be equals before the court

Judge Friedman: We need to protect the victims - the members of Congress - so of course you need to seek permission to use the video. Once you start to file your motions, maybe the Government will say, this is Brady material.

 AUSA: If Mr. Wangaris chooses to plead guilty, those video never need to be made public. Judge Friedman: Isn't there one video that has already been released?  AUSA: It's footage released by the House managers during the impeachment trial. We didn't release it

AUSA: In terms of Brady, I think it's all inculpatory (laughs).

Wangaris' lawyer: The trial of Donald J. Trump triggered the release of much of this video. Judge Friedman: You have to ask me if you want to use it. Tell me it was used in the case of Mr. Trump

 Wangaris' lawyer: The US is also withholding from us information from confidential informants.

Judge Friedman: I'm going to grant the government's motion for a protective order, over the objection of the defense. I don't think I have to provide more legal analysis

Judge Friedman: If the defense wants to appeal, they can mandamus me to the Court of Appeals... Sometimes they're wrong, but I'm bound by them. Next is Jan 7, 1 pm. Adjourned.

On Kenneth Harrelson on August 5, Inner City Press filed a letter and motion with Judge Mehta, on its DocumentCloud here.

On August 16, this: "Judge Mehta is in receipt of your email requesting access to the videos filed in United States v. Harrelson, No. 21-cr-28-10.  Under Standing Order No. 21-28, in order for the court to grant Inner City Press access to the videos filed in Mr. Harrelson’s case, you will need to file an application for access pursuant to D.D.C. Local Criminal Rule 57.6."

That rule provides: "Any news organization or other interested person, other than a party or a subpoenaed witness, who seeks relief relating to any aspect of proceedings in a criminal case... shall file an application for such relief with the Court. The application shall include a statement of the applicant's interest in the matter as to which relief is sought, a statement of facts, and a specific prayer for relief."

So, citing the Rule, Inner City Press filed another letter, one page, docketed here

Podcast here.  And Podcast II of August 19 here.

Now on August 19, it's been granted (shouldn't have been necessary): "MINUTE ORDER as to KENNETH HARRELSON (10) granting Inner City Press's 343 Application for Access to Video Exhibits. The United States shall make available to Inner City Press the video exhibits entered into evidence during the detention hearing of KENNETH HARRELSON (10), consistent with the procedures set forth in Standing Order 21-28. Inner City Press is granted permission to record, copy, download, retransmit, and otherwise further publish these video exhibits. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 8/19/2021."

So now, immediately, put on Inner City Press' YouTube, video here

Similarly, Inner City Press asked DOJ and then Judge Timothy Kelly for access to the videos that DOJ had shown to the court in the case: judicial documents that, under case law, must be made available to the public. But it was denied access, on the theory that Judge Kelly's order earlier in the month limited access to these judicial documents to a particular sub-set of the public.

 Inner City Press on July 27 wrote to Judge Kelly, including in the form of a motion, now on DocumentCloud, here. By noon the next day, July 28, nothing - no responses, no response. We'll have more on this. For now, podcast here; music video here.

Inner City Press live tweeted Riley June Williams on January 25, here. 

  From January 22, song here: Thread here.

 Inner City Press' John Earle Sullivan song on SoundCloud 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 2006-2021 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com