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

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell book

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Nov 3 –  The lead defendant in a criminal case alleging gang extortion in the field of clean-up services to properties damaged by fire asserted his Speedy Trial Act rights. 

 On September 9, 2022, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Jed S. Rakoff held an in-person arraignment and detention or bond proceeding, with the defendant's family and supporters filling half of the courtroom gallery. Inner City Press was there.

  On the request to move up the scheduled May 2023 trial to October, Judge Rakoff said he will speak with Judge Analisa Torres about changing the schedule of her US v. Tim Shea (We Build the Wall) trial. We'll see.

  On detention or release, the Assistant US Attorney recited from audio recordings of threatens, saying "N-word, I'm gonna kill you."  

 The defense lawyer, retained from Staten Island, pointed to those in the gallery and called the threats hyperbole. Judge Rakoff said the defendant clearly had supporters, but was a danger to the community. He was ordered detained.  

Afterward by the elevators, supporters said of the prosecutors after they left in a separate elevator, "They lie."

Jump cut to March 27, 2023, when Judge Rakoff convened a Curcio hearing on the lead defendant. In short order he ruled, there is no conflict, and adjourned the proceeding. Ten days prior, Judge Rakoff had denied this request to suppress the forensic copy of his phone, taken after he was denied entry into Jamaica and was found with $10,000 upon his return.

Back on September 13, Judge Rakoff held a proceeding with co-defendants. The lead defendant Jatiek Smith applied to move his trial from October 17 to November 28 was granted, and three co-defendants were allowed to join him for trial beginning that date, one with a new lawyer. The others remain for trial on "5-1-22," which we take to mean May 1, 2023.

On April 27, Jatiek Smith appeared before Judge Rakoff, seeking to go pro se. His CJA lawyer, it was said on the record, collapsed in the subway; Inner City Press is voluntarily not report further medical details.

  Jatiek Smith said he is tired of waiting for lawyers; he said, "You view me as an animal, so I'll just do it myself."

Judge Rakoff pointed out that the first CJA counsel's sickness was not his fault.

  Then Jatiek Smith asked for the courtroom to be cleared to speak about his experience with his lawyers. Inner City Press did not contest the sealing; it stood by the elevators with six AUSAs and, separately, supporters of Smith. When summoned back in, it was put on the record that Smith will communicate by 5 pm on May 1 if he wants to go pro se - in which case trial would start May 8 or 15 -- or continue with another CJA lawyer, or two, on August 14, moved up in the sealed session from September 19.

It emerged that 3500 material and other discovery cannot be shared with Smith on the same timeline as other defendants, which would impact his ability - and Constitutional right - to represent himself. It was unclear how or if this was addressed in the sealed session.

Thing became clearer on May 1, when the trial date (and representation) were set: "ORDER as to (22-Cr-352-1) Jatiek Smith. On 4/27/23, the Court held an in-person conference with Jatiek Smith, his then-primary counsel Thomas Nooter and co-counsel Jill Shellow, and prospective counsel Andrew Patel, as well as counsel for the Government. See 4/27/23 Hr'g Tr. As discussed further on the record during that proceeding, severe and unexpected medical setbacks that had very recently arisen affecting Mr. Nooter's health meant that Mr. Nooter was no longer able to try this case... following an on-the-record (but sealed) colloquy regarding the risks of going prose, Mr. Smith asked for some time to further consider the issue. He has since written the Court (in a letter that has been docketed separately, see dkt. 211) stating his preference to remain represented by Ms. Shellow (as primary counsel) and Mr. Patel (as co-counsel) and proceed with an August 14 trial date."

On July 11, the US Attorney's Office asked for at least 60 months for Hasim Smith.

On July 19, Inner City Press went to the proceeding for Jatiek Smith to fire his lawyers and go pro se. Judge Rakoff ordered everyone out of the courtroom except outgoing counsel and two associates in the courtroom gallery.

After more than half an hour, the press and public were allowed back in. Judge Rakoff said he had had a cordial talk with Smith and that he would be appointing now counsel, to meet with Smith by July 24. A week after that, Smith is to write in whether he wanted to keep these new counsel and see his trial pushed back, or go forward pro se with the trial starting August 16.

Docketed on July 27 was Jatiek Smith's letter from the MDC, that he will take CJA counsel and see his trial delayed.

On July 28 his brother Hasim Smith was up for sentencing, and got 30 months. Inner City Press was there, thread:

 Inner City Press  noticed the late - today - defense sentencing submission

Defense lawyer says he was late because his client is being "sentenced for things he didn't do."

Judge Rakoff thunders, You brought this on yourself.

Hasim Smith says Parole recommended he go to work in his brother's company, "chasing fires at night... I did not assault anyone."

Judge Rakoff: This defendant is articulate, even eloquent. I sentence him to 30 months.

 On August 16, 2023 a pre-trial conference for Jatiek Smith was on the schedule for 11:30 am. Inner City Press went but found the courtroom door locked. A woman by the elevators with a young child also asked why it was locked.

  Hours later into the docket went a letter from the prosecutors: "this morning, due to reports of the defendant's noncompliance with the U.S. Marshals at the courthouse, the Court adjourned the conference until September 6, 2023."

On September 25 Judge Rakoff docketed this laptop access order - to be contrasted with that, for example, Sam Bankman-Fried's lawyer continue to demand: "ORDER as to Jatiek Smith. The trial of Jatiek Smith was previously scheduled to start on August 14, 2023. By Order dated May 1, 2023, the Court found that numerous security-necessitated lockdowns in the MDC were preventing Mr. Smith from having access to a computer to meaningfully review his discovery and adequately prepare for trial, and the Court accordingly directed that Mr. Smith be provided access to a computer notwithstanding the lockdowns. See Dkt.214. The trial of Mr. Smith has since been rescheduled and will now commence on November 27, 2023. Accordingly, the Court's May 1, 2023, electronic access order (Dkt. 214) is hereby vacated and the following Order substituted. It is hereby ordered, on consent of the parties, that, regardless of lockdowns in the facility, MDC shall permit Mr. Smith to have access to a computer to prepare for trial for no fewer than seven hours per day every day starting on November 6, 2023 and continuing until November 27, 2023, and after the trial begins to have access to a computer for no fewer three hours per day on days when Mr. Smith's presence is required at the courthouse and no fewer than seven hours per day on days when Mr. Smith's presence at the courthouse is not required. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 9/25/2023)." Watch this site.

Then one of Jatiek Smith's co-defendants was sentenced, with a medical facility recommended: "as to Kaheen Small (4), Count(s) 1, Dismissed; Pleaded guilty to Count(s) 2, Imprisonment for a total term of Twenty Four (24) Months. Supervised release for a term of Two Years. The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons: Incarceration in a Chronic Care 3 Facility such as FCI Butner Low, Butner, North Carolina or FMC Devens Low, Ayer, Massachusetts. The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons before 2pm on 11/28/2023. Special Assessment of $100 which is due immediately. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 9/26/2023)."

On October 10, Judge Rakoff docketed: "ORDER as to Jatiek Smith: The Court has received two prose filings from defendant Jatiek Smith, dated September 28, 2023, and October 6, 2023. Mr. Smith, although offered the opportunity to proceed prose, has chosen to be represented by appointed counsel, Jonathan P. Buza. Accordingly, the Court has warned Mr. Smith that such prose filings are not permitted and all applications must be made through his counsel. As a courtesy to Mr. Smith, the Court will forward copies of his submissions to his counsel so that Mr. Buza is apprised of these improper filings. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 10/10/2023)." And he set a pre trial conference for October 23 at 11 am.

Inner City Press went, and found the Assistant US Attorney's waiting out in the hall. Later, it went in as Judge Rakoff authorized a paralegal to act as Jatiek Smith messenger, but not to provide any legal advice. Then "Defendant's motion to proceed for trial pro se and have standby CJA counsel appointed granted after a Faretta hearing proceeds. The trail date remains 11/27/2023."

On November 3, Judge Rakoff docketed that Smith may be shackled for trial, for anger management issues - so a bench trial is being briefed: "ORDER as to Jatiek Smith: On October 30, 2023, prose defendant Jatiek Smith filed a multipart motion, requesting a bench trial as well as various other forms of relief. See Dkt. 296. On October 31, 2023, the Government submitted a letter indicating they objected to a bench trial in this case. See Dkt. 298. The Government submitted a letter responding to the remainder of Defendant's requests today. See Dkt. 299. Except with respect to defendant's request for a bench trial, the defendant's motion is denied for the reasons well-articulated in the Government's responding letter filed today. see Dkt. 299. With respect to defendant's request for a bench trial, the Court's deputy was late this afternoon made aware by the United States Marshals that defendant has a substantial history of anger management issues and that as a result the Marshals believe it will be necessary for the defendant to remain shackled for the entire duration of the trial. While the Marshals have been told to put this request in writing, so that the parties may respond, the Court is concerned that these security arrangements, as well as the real possibility of an outburst by defendant during trial, could substantially prejudice a jury. Furthermore, the defendant's choice to represent himself prose at the trial, together with his frequently-manifested unfamiliarity with the rules of evidence, further suggests that, even with the aid of his standby counsel, he may be subject to frequent reprimands in front of the jury. Accordingly, the Government is directed to make a written submission by no later than the close of business on November 7, 2023, explaining why the Court should not overrule the Government's objection to a nonjury trial. See Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 37 (1965) (acknowledging there may "be some circumstances where a defendant's reasons for wanting to be tried by a judge alone are so compelling that the Government's insistence on trial by jury would result in the denial to a defendant of an impartial trial"); see, e.g., United States v. Cohn, 481 F. Supp. 3d 122, 135 (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (granting bench trial over Government's objection); United States v. Schipani, 44 F.R.D. 461, 463 (E.D.N.Y. 1968) (same). (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 11/3/2023)."

Watch this site.

  The overall case is US v. Smith, et al., 22-cr-352 (Rakoff)

***

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 2006-2022 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com