| Transcript Sealed By Judge
Sullivan In Second Rodriguez Case Still No
Response To Inner City Press Objection
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Exclusive; Video, pics
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Oct 2 – Rafael Rodriguez after
repeated involving in
narcotics dealing in the
United States was ordered to
not return, if deported,
without permission by US Judge
Richard J. Sullivan. Then
Rodriguez returned. And his
sentencing submissions were
withheld from the public
before his re-sentencing on
October 2 and will be
unilaterally redacted after
that. This while the entire
sentencing of another
Rodriguez, Jose Rodriguez of
whom Inner City Press inquired
in writing, remains entirely
confidential. Reasonable minds
can of course disagree. But
transparency is lacking here.
On October 2
Inner City Press went to
attend and report on the
re-sentencing of Rafael
Rodriguez by Judge Sullivan in
Courtroom 23B at 3 pm. But the
interpreter's microphone and
headphones didn't work. The
proceeding was delayed until
3:40 pm, during which delay
Inner City Press was pointedly
asked or told, "Must be a slow
news day," meaning, Why are
you covering this.
It was NOT
a slow news day -- Inner City
Press juggled to cover the
opening of the Honduras drug
trial and the endgame in a Bed
Stuy drug conspiracy trial
higher profile than Sullivan's
still intriguing US v. Ernest
Murphy. But sentencing should
not fly below the radar just
because there's other news in
the building.
Judge
Sullivan to his credit said as
he often now does, These
proceedings are open, anyone
can just walk in and watch.
But then he solicited
redactions to sentencing
submissions from the defense
and also the government, and
agreed to withhold the
transcript of the proceeding
for weeks, it seems. All
without any opportunity to be
heard, or response to Inner
City Press' written submission
about the earlier Rodriguez
sentencing.
The story
of Rafael Rodriguez is
compelling. He was caught and
decided to cooperate, even
though unlike for example
rapper 6ix9ine's driver Jorge
Rivera he was assured of
deportation. And according to
his lawyer, quite able, he
initially obeyed and found a
job in the Dominican Republic.
But then some threats, all
withheld in the record, began.
So Rafael
Rodriguez passed from the
Dominican Republic to Mexico
and entered the US through the
southern border. He was caught
and sentenced to thirty months
by a judge there.
But Judge
Sullivan said on October 2,
that was for punishment, now
for the breach of trust. After
hearing from the parties, with
many references to parts of
the record withheld from the
Press and public, Judge
Sullivan imposed a sentence of
a year and a day, so that
Rodriguez can get 15% off.
He'll still be under
Supervised Release, unable to
return.
So if the
danger in the Dominican
Republic is so serious as to
merit sealing and/or redaction
of the record, why is it OK to
return him there? When the
government admitted on October
2, on the record if only on a
delay, that there is not law
enforcement rationale for
sealing anything? We'll have
more on this. And, we hope,
this:
Back in the
summer of 2019 a man who
pleaded guilty to narcotics
charges back in June 2005 was
belatedly set to be sentenced
on 26 July 2019 but then asked
that it be delayed three weeks
and sealed, in a joint request
with the U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of New York.
Inner City Press was present;
Circuit Judge Richard J.
Sullivan corrected told
Assistant US Attorney Nicholas
W. Chiuchiolo that he should
make his request to seal in
writing.
On August
3 Inner City Press wrote to
Judge Sullivan, copying AUSA
Chiuchiolo and defendant Jose
Rodriguez' lawyer Peter Joseph
Guadagnino, about and opposing
the proposed sealing: "August
3, 2019
Via e-mail to
[Chambers] and counsel by
e-mail
The Honorable
Richard J. Sullivan
United States District Court
Southern District of New
York 40 Foley
Square New York, NY
10007
Re: United States
v. Jose Rodriguez 05-cr-221
(RJS)
Dear Judge
Sullivan:
I am a journalist
interested in covering the
above-captioned sentencing, as
well as other criminal
proceedings. As such I was in
your courtroom 15A on July 26,
2019 when the defendant's
counsel and the Government
sought a sidebar (denied) and
then that the sentencing be
sealed.
You directed them
to make their requests to seal
in writing on or before August
16, 2019, but seemed to
indicate that even their
requests could be made under
seal.
I am writing this
letter, copying both counsel,
to express my interest and
that of Inner City Press in
covering the sentencing and
therefore in having an
opportunity to review and if
necessary respond to any
requests to seal and exclude
the
press.
On July 26 Your
Honor cited U.S. v. Amodeo;
reference is also made to United
States v. Haller, 837
F.2d 84, 87 (2d Cir. 1988) and
United States v. Alcantara,
396 F.3d 189, 196 (2d Cir.
2005).
I note that as of
August 3 there are no such
requests to seal filed in the
docket on PACER, not even any
record of the sentencing
submissions presumably
submitted on July 11 and July
18, 2019. Again, I am
submitting this as a letter by
email to Chambers and both
counsel, and not as a motion
opposing sealing, in part
because I have not seen any
request(s) for
sealing.
I and Inner
City Press will appreciate
being informed when and what
portions of any requests for
filing will be available for
viewing and possible response,
and being apprised of rights
to attend and cover the
sentencing.
Respectfully, Matthew
Russell Lee Inner City
Press
cc: Nicholas W. Chiuchiolo,
Assistant U.S. Attorney (by
e-mail) Peter Joseph
Guadagnino, Esq. (by e-mail)"
But by the close of
Tuesday, August 6, when Judge
Sullivan had announced the
prospective partial sealing of
his courtroom even for a
trial, there was no response -
not only directly from
chambers or the District
Executive, but from either
counsel. Inner City Press will
have more on this.
Inner City
Press initially voluntarily
chose not to disclose even the
case name. But it must have an
opportunity to be heard on any
possible sealing of the
publicly announced sentencing
which it went to attend and
cover and was then pulled
back.
Tellingly, the sentencing
submissions by the government
due July 11 and by the
Defendants due July 18 were
not even listed in the docket
as sealed documents, and still
as of August 6 are not. It is
as if they were never filed.
Inner City
Press will
have more on
this - see
also @InnerCityPress
and @SDNYLIVE.
***
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
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
|
,
