| On Felon Charged with Bid
to Bring Ammo Into SDNY All Video
Protected With Entrants Cited
by
Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book
Substack
SDNY
COURTHOUSE,
May 21 – A man previously
convicted of a felony was
arrested and charged with
trying to bring ammunition
into the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of
New York.
On May 13
his Federal Defender opposed
the prosecutors' proposed
restriction on how he can use
discovery material, including
video of the security
arrangements in SDNY. Inner
City Press was there,
tweet.
Judge Rakoff heard from other
sides about the protective
order, then asked for two
letters on it, say he will
rule before the deadline for
discovery. At the next
conference, he said, he will
set a trial date.
The
AUSA disclosed that he had
clerked for Judge Rakoff, who
officiated over his wedding.
Judge Rakoff said he will not
socialize with his former
clerk during this case - and
joked that after he rules, the
prosecutor may want to never
speak with him again.
On May 15 the US
Attorney's Office submitted
its proposed order that the
discovery material not be
"posted online or disclosed to
the media," arguing that the
videos could reveal the
location of cameras and other
members of the public whose
business at the courthouse
could be sensitive.
Of course, they
could be filmed coming into
the courthouse.
On May 19 the
Federal Defender made this
point, and cited a Judge Ho
decision - but agreed that
some video should not be put
on the internet or shared with
the media.
On May 21 Judge
Rakoff upheld the protective
order: "defense counsel
correctly notes that the
burden is on the Government to
justify the entry of a
protective order and that the
presumption should be in favor
of free disclosure absent good
cause shown. See ECF No. 8.
Here, however, the Court finds
that the Government has
satisfactorily demonstrated
good cause because of the
sensitive concerns raised by
this case's close connection
to courthouse security. If
defense counsel later believes
that the restrictions as to
any particular discovery i
tern impose a significant
burden on Mr. Banyan or are
otherwise not justified by the
aforementioned security
concerns, counsel may
separately apply to the Court
for relief. Subject to this
limitation, however, the
Government's motion for a
protective order is granted,
and the requested protective
order will be signed and filed
simultaneously with this
Order." Even as to video of
those entering the courthouse?
The case
is USA v. Banyan, 1:25-cr-208
(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
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station,
NY NY 10013
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 2006-2025 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
