Post on 25-Jul-2020
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney Eastern District of New York
AB:MJB 271 Cadman Plaza East F. #2020R00151 Brooklyn, New York 11201
March 18, 2020 By ECF and E-mail The Honorable Lois Bloom United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re: United States v. Douglas Ebanks Criminal Docket No. 20-204M
Dear Judge Bloom:
The government respectfully submits this letter concerning the preliminary hearing scheduled for March 18, 2020, in the above case. The government is prepared to proceed but understands that extraordinary circumstances exist, for which circumstances the Court has asked the United States Marshal’s Service not to produce the defendant. The government therefore respectfully submits that the Court should adjourn the preliminary hearing until, at the earliest, April 27, 2020, or until such time as Administrative Order No. 2020-06 is lifted, and should make findings pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d) that extraordinary circumstances exist and justice requires the delay.
On March 4, 2020 the defendant was arraigned on a complaint charging him with illegally possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of a felony. A permanent order of detention was entered and the defendant requested a preliminary hearing, which the Honorable Steven M. Gold scheduled for March 18, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. The government has attempted to obtain an indictment, which, pursuant to Rule 5.1(a)(2) would obviate the need for a preliminary hearing, but as a result of the current extraordinary circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the government has not yet been able to secure time with a grand jury with a quorum present. The government notified defense counsel of the likelihood that a hearing would not be obviated by indictment, and the defendant declined to waive the hearing pursuant to Rule 5.1(a)(1). The government therefore requested that the United States Marshal’s Service produce the defendant for the preliminary hearing. The government submits that, absent a waiver, the defendant’s
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 5 Filed 03/18/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 9
2
presence is required at such proceeding. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(a); Grayton v. Ercole, 691 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 837 (2013) (right to be present at Geraci hearing); Clark v. Stinson, 214 F.3d 315, 322 (2d Cir. 2000) (right to be present at Wade hearing but properly waived that right). However, the government understands that, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court has directed the Marshal’s Service not to produce the defendant.
The government is prepared to proceed with a preliminary hearing on March 18, 2020. However, if the defendant is not present, and he has not waived the hearing pursuant to Rule 5.1(a)(1) or agreed to an adjournment pursuant to Rule 5.1(d), the government submits that the Court should make findings pursuant to Rule 5.1(d) that justice requires extending the time by which a hearing must be conducted due to extraordinary circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 virus.
Since approximately March 9, 2020, grand jury panels within the Eastern District have experienced diminished attendance due to concerns surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, a grand jury replacement panel was ordered for Monday, March 16, 2020. The day before the scheduled empaneling, Sunday, March 15, 2020, Chief Judge Mauskopf cancelled the questioning and empaneling of the prospective replacement grand jurors. Over successive days, the government attempted to present the above-captioned case to the existing grand jury panels, but due to absences caused by the COVID-19 virus, these grand jury panels have not comprised a quorum.
On Monday, March 16, 2020 Chief Judge Mauskopf issued Administrative Order No. 2020-06 noting the President of the United States’ declaration of a national emergency and the actions taken throughout the state in an effort to slow the spread of the disease. Of particular note, the Order excluded time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(a)-(c) and (h)(7)(A), finding that “the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the interests of the parties and the public in a speedy trial and in the time in which an indictment must be filed.” (Administrative Order No. 2020-06, ¶ 7). Additionally, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio yesterday issued a statement indicating that all New Yorkers should prepare for a “shelter-in-place” order, which may be issued imminently.
For the foregoing reasons, if the defendant does not waive or consent to the adjournment of the preliminary hearing, the Court should make findings pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(d) that extraordinary circumstances exist and that justice requires an extension
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 5 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 10
3
of time until April 27, 2020, or until such time as Administrative Order No. 2020-06 is lifted, to conduct the preliminary hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
RICHARD P. DONOGHUE United States Attorney
By: /s/
Michael J. Bushwack Assistant U.S. Attorney (718) 254-6454
cc: Clerk of Court (LB) (By ECF) Mildred Whalen, Esq. (By e-mail)
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 5 Filed 03/18/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 11
March 18, 2020 The Honorable Lois Bloom U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re: U.S.A. v. Juan Plasencia, 20 MJ 205 U.S.A. v. Douglas Ebanks, 20 MJ 204 Your Honor:
I write in response to the Government’s request for adjournments of the date of the preliminary hearings in these matters to April 27, 2020, or a date after Administrative Order 2020-06 is lifted. The defense opposes the time of the adjournment requested as too lengthy and outside of the procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (FedRCrimP) 5.1(d).
At a conference yesterday, the Court ruled that she found an extraordinary circumstance
in the existence of the Covid-19 pandemic and that the interests of justice required the protection of the parties involved who would be put at risk if the preliminary hearing was held. Based on those findings, the Court refused to schedule the preliminary hearings. The Court did not set a new date for the hearings, saying it was awaiting guidance on how the right to a preliminary hearing should be interpreted as a result of Administrative Order 2020-06.
Without a defendant’s consent for an extension, FedRCrimP 5.1(d) permits a Magistrate
Judge to extend the time frames set forth in the Rule. Those time frames require the scheduling of preliminary hearings within 14 days for a defendant in custody, and 21 days for a defendant out of custody, see FedRCrimP 5.1(c). As the defense stated at yesterday’s conference, the rules governing preliminary hearings are not set forth in the speedy trial rules, but in FedRCrimP 5.1. As a result, the Court is required to follow Rule 5.1(d) in extending the time frames for a preliminary hearing. As the Rule states “a magistrate judge may extend the time limits in Rule 5.1(c) one or more times.” Should additional extensions become necessary, the government must file additional requests. The Court must then make the necessary findings that extraordinary circumstances and the interests of justice still exist and require an additional extension.
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 6 Filed 03/18/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 12
As a result, and based on the Court’s findings yesterday that extraordinary circumstances and the interests of justice required an extension of the timeframes, that extension should only be granted until April 1, 2020, when the next 14 day period will expire.
Respectfully submitted,
Mildred M. Whalen Federal Defenders of New York, Inc. Attorneys for Mr. Plasencia and Mr. Ebanks (718) 330-1290
cc: Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Pollack, Esq. (via email and ECF) Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Bushwack, Esq. (via email and ECF
ECF
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 6 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 13
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney Eastern District of New York
WK:MJB 271 Cadman Plaza East F. #2020R00151 Brooklyn, New York 11201
April 30, 2020 By ECF and E-mail The Honorable Cheryl L. Pollak Chief United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re: United States v. Douglas Ebanks Criminal Docket No. 20-204M
Dear Chief Judge Pollak:
The government respectfully submits this letter concerning a preliminary hearing previously scheduled for March 18, 2020 in the above case. On March 18, 2020 the Honorable Lois Bloom adjourned the hearing due to the extraordinary circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. The government respectfully requests that the Court adjourn the preliminary hearing until June 15, 2020, or any date specified pursuant to a future Administrative Order. The government further requests the that the Court make findings pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d) that extraordinary circumstances exist and justice requires the delay.
I. Background
On March 4, 2020, the defendant was arraigned on a complaint charging him with illegally possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of a felony. (ECF Dkt. No. 1). A permanent order of detention was entered and the defendant requested a preliminary hearing, which the Honorable Steven M. Gold scheduled for March 18, 2020. The government was prepared to seek an indictment, which, pursuant to Rule 5.1(a)(2) would have obviated the need for a preliminary hearing. As a result of the current extraordinary circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, however, no regular grand jury in this district has had a quorum since March 13, 2020. See In re: Coronavirus/COVID-19 Administrative Order 2020-11, p.1.
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 7 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 14
2
On March 18, 2020 the government filed a letter advising the Court that the government was prepared to proceed with the preliminary hearing, but requested instead that the Court make findings pursuant to Rule 5.1(d) that justice required extending the time by which a hearing must be conducted due to extraordinary circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 virus. (ECF Dkt. No. 5). On March 18, 2020, the Honorable Lois Bloom issued an electronic order that “[i]n light of the national emergency and the Court's Administrative Order No. 2020-06, the Government’s request to adjourn the preliminary hearing until April 27, 2020 is granted. The Court finds extraordinary circumstances exist and justice requires the delay. Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(d).”1
On March 18, 2020, Chief Judge Mauskopf issued Administrative Order 2020-11 which extended the time within which a preliminary hearing must be held to “60 days after the initial appearance” noting that “extraordinary circumstances exist and justice requires the delay.” (Administrative Order No. 2020-11, p. 2). Here, sixty days after Mr. Ebanks’ initial appearance is Sunday, May 3, 2020, thereby requiring the preliminary hearing to occur by Monday, May 4, 2020.
On April 21, 2020, citing the ongoing exigent circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic, Chief Judge Mauskopf issued Administrative Order 2020-15 which excluded the time period from April 27, 2020 to June 15, 2020, under the Speedy Trial Act, for “all trials and other conferences and proceedings in criminal cases,” including the 30-day time period for filing an indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). (Administrative Order No. 2020-15, ¶ 6). With respect to preliminary hearings, Administrative Order 2020-15 specified that:
Due to the ongoing exigent circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic as outlined herein, in all criminal matters in which a magistrate judge must conduct a preliminary hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 on or between April 27, 2020 and June 15, 2020, the time for such hearing set forth in Rule 5.l(c) is further extended to no later than 60 days after the initial appearance of the defendant.
(Administrative Order No. 2020-15, ¶ 7)
1 Administrative Order No. 2020-06, cited by Judge Bloom, was issued on March 16, 2020 by Chief Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf which excluded the time between March 16, 2020 and April 27, 2020, under the Speedy Trial Act, in all criminal matters, finding that “the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the interests of the parties and the public in a speedy trial and in the time in which an indictment must be filed.” (Administrative Order No. 2020-06, ¶ 7).
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 7 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 15
3
Notably, Administrative Order No. 2020-15 also directed that “[n]o in-person bench trials or evidentiary hearings may be scheduled without consultation with the Chief Judge.” (Administrative Order No. 2020-15, ¶ 4).
II. Issue and Request
Here, if ¶ 7 of Administrative Order No. 2020-15 is followed in the absence of another order in this case, an evidentiary hearing, i.e., the preliminary hearing in this case, would be required to be held on May 4, 2020, both well in advance of the June 15, 2020 date specified in ¶ 6 of Administrative Order No. 2020-15 and also during the pendency of the ongoing exigent circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic as outlined in Administrative Order No. 2020-15. The government has asked counsel for Mr. Ebanks whether he would consent to the adjournment request or waive the preliminary hearing, but the government has not, as of this time, received an answer.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully requests that the Court make findings pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(d) that extraordinary circumstances exist and that justice requires an extension of time until June 15, 2020, or any date specified by a future Administrative Order, to conduct the preliminary hearing in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
RICHARD P. DONOGHUE United States Attorney
By: /s/
Michael J. Bushwack Assistant U.S. Attorney (718) 254-6454
cc: Clerk of Court (CLP) (By ECF and e-mail) Mildred Whalen, Esq. (By e-mail)
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 7 Filed 04/30/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 16
1
May 1, 2020 The Honorable Cheryl L. Pollak Chief U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re: U.S.A. v. Douglas Ebanks, 20 MJ 204 Your Honor:
Please accept this letter as a motion to reconsider the decision to grant the government’s motion to continue, filed at 5:12 p.m. last evening. I write to oppose the Government’s request to adjourn the preliminary hearing in Mr. Ebanks’ case to June 15, 2020 or any date set in any future administrative order issued as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Instead, the Court should dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure (Fed.R.Crim.P.) 48(b)(1), which permits the Court to dismiss a complaint when there has been unnecessary delay in presenting a charge to the grand jury. There has been such unnecessary delay in this case.
1. Background.
Mr. Ebanks was arraigned on a federal complaint on March 4, 2020. This was not the first time Mr. Ebanks was in a court facing these charges, however. Mr. Ebanks had been arrested on the charges underlying the complaint on December 26, 2019. Please see the complaint in this case, ECF No. 1.
The charges underlying the federal complaint are being prosecuted in New York State
Supreme Court, Kings County.1 The case in New York was indicted on January 14, 2020. Mr.
1 Upon information and belief, when a case has been indicted in New York State Supreme Court and is then transferred to federal court, the New York State indictment is not dismissed unless and until the case is indicted in federal court. This permits New York State to retain jurisdiction and continue its prosecution should the federal government decide not to continue the prosecution in federal court. Upon further information and belief, Mr. Ebanks was brought into federal custody on a writ, with New York State retaining primary custody over his person, even though he is physically in federal BOP custody. If the federal case is indicted, the New York State indictment will be dismissed, and the federal government will take primary custody of Mr. Ebanks. If the federal case is not indicted, prosecution will continue in New York State Supreme Court, Kings County.
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 8 Filed 05/01/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 17
2
Ebanks was and remains detained on that case on $100,000 bail. He has pled not guilty to those charges and was awaiting trial. He is next scheduled to appear in Kings County Supreme Court on May 12, 2020. Please see exhibit A, Appearances from the New York State Unified Court System.
Mr. Ebanks demanded a preliminary hearing at his arraignment in federal court on March
4, 2020, and the hearing was scheduled for March 18, 2020. On March 17, 2020, the government informed the magistrate clerks that they were prepared to proceed to a preliminary hearing the following day. While not reflected on the docket sheet, but reflected in the defense submission of March 18, 2020, ECF No. 6, and Magistrate Judge Bloom’s order of March 18, 2020, Magistrate Judge Bloom held an emergency status conference on March 17, 2020 and advised defense counsel she would not hold a preliminary hearing on March 18, 2020. Magistrate Bloom made the finding that Fed.R.Crim.P. 5.1(d) permitted an adjournment of the hearing if extraordinary circumstances existed and justice required the delay. Magistrate Judge Bloom found such extraordinary circumstances and justice requiring the delay in the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The following day Magistrate Judge Bloom adjourned the preliminary hearing, by order and over defense objection, to April 27, 2020. As the defense noted in our submission of March 18, 2020, this adjournment was outside of the rules set forth in Fed.R.Crim.P. 5.1(c), which only permitted an adjournment of the preliminary hearing for a defendant in custody for 14 days.
On March 18, 2020, Chief Judge Mauskopf issued Administrative Order 2020-11, which
extended the time within which a preliminary hearing must be held to 60 days after the initial appearance. On April 21, 2020, Chief Judge Mauskopf issued Administrative Order 2020-15, which stated that for all criminal matters in which a magistrate judge must conduct a preliminary hearing between April 27, 2020 and June 15, 2020, the time for such a preliminary hearing is extended to no later than 60 days after the initial appearance of the defendant. As the government correctly notes, this would require a preliminary hearing in Mr. Ebanks’ case on May 4, 2020.
2. Issue and Request.
The Court has now granted the government another extraordinary extension of the time in
which conduct a preliminary hearing. The Court has granted an extension to June 25, 2020 or 10 days after the expiration of any future administrative order.2 As will be detailed below, the government’s request for an extension was the result of an unnecessary delay by the government
2 While the government has asked defense counsel if Mr. Ebanks would waive a preliminary hearing in this matter, and advises the Court that it has not yet heard from defense counsel on this request, defense counsel has no ability to respond to the government’s request for the simple reason that the MDC is on lockdown. Inmates are restricted to their cells 24 hours a day Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday. They are released from their cells Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for one hour. During this one hour, inmates are expected to shower, make all telephone calls to their families, and email. The government asked defense counsel to waive the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, April 29, 2020, and defense counsel emailed Mr. Ebanks. Unfortunately, defense counsel must have missed the one-hour window Mr. Ebanks would have had to respond to defense counsel email, or he was otherwise engaged on the telephone or taking a shower.
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 8 Filed 05/01/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 18
3
in conducting a preliminary hearing or presenting the case to the grand jury before March 18, 2020. The Court should reconsider its decision, deny the government’s request, and dismiss the federal complaint.
a. Fed.R.Crim.P. 48. Dismissal.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 48(b)(1) permits dismissal of a complaint by the Court if unnecessary delay
occurs in presenting a charge to the grand jury. This provision not only allows the Court to dismiss on constitutional grounds, but also permits the Court to dismiss where the delay is not of a constitutional magnitude. This rule operates independently of the Speedy Trial Act and is broader in compass. United States v. Goodson, 204 F.3d 508, 513 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Balochi, 527 F.2d 562, 563-64 (4th Cir. 1976)(per curiam).
The government claims that the coronavirus pandemic prevented them from presenting this
case to the grand jury and continues to prevent them from holding a preliminary hearing. As detailed below, while the coronavirus pandemic may prevent them from holding a preliminary hearing, the government had ample opportunity to indict the case prior to the pandemic closing the court. The complaint should be dismissed for their unnecessary delay in presenting this charge to the grand jury.
b. The government could have obtained an indictment prior to bringing Mr.
Ebanks to federal court.
As detailed above, Mr. Ebanks was arrested on December 26, 2019. He was held on bail in state custody and was indicted on January 14, 2020. He made three subsequent court appearances in state court and was pending trial. While it is unclear when the government made their decision to prosecute the case federally, it clearly did so prior to March 4, 2020. The federal government was not required to have Mr. Ebanks in custody when they obtained their indictment and could have obtained the indictment prior to bringing him into federal custody. Their decision not to indict the case prior to bringing Mr. Ebanks into federal custody should not be now used to further detain him in federal custody. Their failure to indict the case before bringing Mr. Ebanks to federal court was an unnecessary delay and permits the Court to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 48(b)(1).
c. The government could have indicted Mr. Ebanks after he was arraigned on the federal complaint.
Furthermore, after Mr. Ebanks was arraigned on the federal complaint the government could
have moved to speedily indict the case. While the government claims that they have been unable to achieve a quorum in the grand jury since March 13, 2020, they had ample opportunity between March 5 and March 13, 2020, seven business days, to present this case to a grand jury.
This is especially true when, based upon the government’s review that the case should be
transferred to federal court, the government would have already met with and spoken to the officers involved in the arrest to determine if the case should be brought in federal court. This is not a case where the government had to do an investigation immediately following an arrest. As
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 8 Filed 05/01/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 19
4
noted above, the government had ample opportunity to investigate the case and prepare witnesses for the grand jury before Mr. Ebanks was brought to federal court. Given this unnecessary delay in presenting the charge to the grand jury, the federal complaint should be dismissed.
d. The government’s claim of an inability to achieve a quorum is undermined by their ability to obtain superseding indictments in a high-profile case.
Finally, while no ‘regular’ grand juries could apparently achieve a quorum after March 13,
2020, the government was able to convene a grand jury in high profile case and have them vote superseding indictments on March 18, 2020, the same day they were arguing they could not proceed in the grand jury on Mr. Ebanks’ case. Furthermore, these superseding indictments were obtained in a case with no demonstrated urgency for the use of grand jury resources. Please see Docket No.15-CR-252 (PKC), ECF Nos. 1319 and 1337, where superseding indictments were filed on March 18, 2020, adding four new defendants to the FIFA soccer federation fraud, bribery, and money laundering case.
While fraud, bribery and money laundering are serious charges, there appears to have been no special urgency for the government to convene that grand jury as opposed to focusing their efforts and resources on Mr. Ebanks and other defendants in custody. Upon information, belief, and a review of the FIFA docket, the two individual (as opposed to corporate) defendants arraigned on this indictment were not in custody prior to the indictment, were not arrested after the indictment was obtained, appeared at arraignment by summons, and were granted bond at a telephonic arraignment.
The fact that the government could achieve a quorum in a grand jury for rich and high
profile defendants, on the same day that they were arguing they could not proceed in Mr. Ebanks’ case, was a gross misuse of the grand jury system. For the government to then demand and be granted their request that Mr. Ebanks, who is charged with being a felon in possession of a gun in his home, be held in custody for months beyond the statutory time frames, while these other defendants, indicted for charges of fraud, bribery, and money laundering, were not even arrested much less detained, makes it clear there is one system of justice for the rich and one for the poor. This misuse of grand jury resources contributed to an unnecessary delay in Mr. Ebanks case, and the federal complaint should be dismissed as a result.
e. Conclusion.
The government chose how to proceed in this case. They chose to disrupt the state prosecution and delay Mr. Ebanks’ ability to defend himself by bringing a federal case. They then chose not to indict the federal case prior to bringing Mr. Ebanks into federal custody. They then chose not to present the case to the federal grand jury between March 5 and March 13, 2020. Finally, they chose to focus grand jury resources on a high-profile case of rich and famous defendants they had no intention of arresting or detaining, rather than focus them on Mr. Ebanks, a poor man in custody. As is clear, the federal government chose to unnecessarily delay presenting this case to the grand jury, and as a result the complaint should be dismissed. We ask the Court to reconsider the government’s request to continue, we ask the Court to deny that
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 8 Filed 05/01/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 20
5
request upon reconsideration, and we ask the Court to dismiss the federal complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 48(b)(1).
Respectfully submitted,
Mildred M. Whalen Federal Defenders of New York, Inc. Attorneys for Mr. Ebanks (718) 330-1290
cc: Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Bushwack, Esq. (via email and ECF
ECF
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 8 Filed 05/01/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 21
4/30/2020 Case Details - Appearances
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcrim_attorney/Detail?which=appearance&docketNumber=VkXOk4NUcxT3DcnwgCj_PLUS_5w==&countyId=Mx3N… 1/1
N e w Yo r k S t a t e U n i f i e d C o u r t S y s t e m
We b C r i m i n a l
Court: Kings Supreme Court - Criminal TermCase #: 07687-2019Defendant: Ebanks, Douglas
Case Details - AppearancesCASE INFORMATION
Date/Time
Judge/Part
CalendarSection
Arraignment/Hearing Type
CourtReporter
Outcome/Release Status
05/12/2020GP28
TRIALS AM No Type
03/10/2020 Hudson, SGP28
TRIALS AM No Type Panzella, K AdjournedSame BailConditions
02/14/2020 Hudson, SGP28
TRIALS AM No Type Na, AdjournedSame BailConditions
01/30/2020 Hudson, SGP28
TRIALS AM No Type Schiano, A AdjournedSame BailConditions
01/23/2020 Hudson, SGP28
ARRAIGNMENTS Regular Gaeta-milella, D Pled Not GuiltyBond $100,000Cash $50,000 (NotPosted)
01/14/2020GRAND JURY
MISCELLANEOUS No Type True BillBail Continued
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 8-1 Filed 05/01/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 22
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney Eastern District of New York
WK:MJB 271 Cadman Plaza East F. #2020R00151 Brooklyn, New York 11201
May 6, 2020 By ECF and E-mail The Honorable Cheryl L. Pollak Chief United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re: United States v. Douglas Ebanks Criminal Docket No. 20-204M
Dear Chief Judge Pollak,
The government respectfully submits this letter in response to the defendant’s motion to reconsider this Court’s April 30, 2020 Order granting the government’s request to adjourn the preliminary hearing in the above-captioned case due to the extraordinary circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant’s motion should be denied.
I. Background
On March 4, 2020, the defendant was arraigned on a complaint charging him with illegally possessing a firearm and ammunition after having been convicted of a felony. (ECF Dkt. No. 1). A permanent order of detention was entered and the defendant requested a preliminary hearing, which the Honorable Steven M. Gold scheduled for March 18, 2020. As described in detail below, the government took numerous steps to secure an indictment, which, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(a)(2), would have obviated the need for a preliminary hearing. As a result of the current extraordinary circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the government was unable to present the case to a grand jury with a quorum present.
On March 18, 2020 the government filed a letter advising the Honorable Lois Bloom that the government was prepared to proceed with the preliminary hearing, but requested instead that the court make findings pursuant to Rule 5.1(d) that justice required extending the time by which a hearing must be conducted due to extraordinary circumstances
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 9 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 23
2
brought about by the COVID-19 virus. (ECF Dkt. No. 5). On March 18, 2020, Judge Bloom issued an electronic order that “[i]n light of the national emergency and the Court’s Administrative Order No. 2020-06, the Government’s request to adjourn the preliminary hearing until April 27, 2020 is granted. The Court finds extraordinary circumstances exist and justice requires the delay. Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(d).”1
On March 18, 2020, Chief Judge Mauskopf issued Administrative Order 2020-11 which extended the time within which a preliminary hearing must be held to “60 days after the initial appearance” noting that “extraordinary circumstances exist and justice requires the delay.” (Administrative Order No. 2020-11, p. 2). Here, 60 days after Mr. Ebanks’ initial appearance was Sunday, May 3, 2020, thereby requiring the preliminary hearing to occur by Monday, May 4, 2020. (Fed. R. Crim P. 45(a)(1)(C)).
On April 21, 2020, citing the ongoing exigent circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic, Chief Judge Mauskopf issued Administrative Order 2020-15 which excluded the time period from April 27, 2020 to June 15, 2020, under the Speedy Trial Act, for “all trials and other conferences and proceedings in criminal cases,” including the 30-day time period for filing an indictment under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(b). (Administrative Order No. 2020-15, ¶ 6). With respect to preliminary hearings, Administrative Order 2020-15 specified that:
Due to the ongoing exigent circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic as outlined herein, in all criminal matters in which a magistrate judge must conduct a preliminary hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 on or between April 27, 2020 and June 15, 2020, the time for such hearing set forth in Rule 5.l(c) is further extended to no later than 60 days after the initial appearance of the defendant.
(Administrative Order No. 2020-15, ¶ 7). Notably, Administrative Order No. 2020-15 also directed that “[n]o in-person bench trials or evidentiary hearings may be scheduled without consultation with the Chief Judge.” (Administrative Order No. 2020-15, ¶ 4).
Due to the extraordinary circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing unavailability of a quorum of grand jurors, on April 30, 2020, the government requested an adjournment until June 15, 2020, or any date specified by a subsequent Administrative Order, to conduct the preliminary hearing in this case. (ECF Dkt. No. 7). On April 30, 2020, this Court granted the government’s request for an extension of 1 Administrative Order No. 2020-06, cited by Judge Bloom, was issued on March 16, 2020 by Chief Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf which excluded the time between March 16, 2020 and April 27, 2020, under the Speedy Trial Act, in all criminal matters, finding that “the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the interests of the parties and the public in a speedy trial and in the time in which an indictment must be filed.” (Administrative Order No. 2020-06, ¶ 7).
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 9 Filed 05/06/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 24
3
time to conduct the preliminary hearing until 10 days after the expiration of Administrative Order 2020-15, scheduled to expire on June 15, 2020, or to such time thereafter should the Administrative Order be extended.
On May 1, 2020, the defendant filed a motion (“Def. Mot.”) asking the Court to reconsider its Order granting the government an extension of time to conduct a preliminary hearing. The defendant also requested that the criminal complaint be dismissed. (ECF Dkt. No. 8). For the reasons set forth herein and in the government’s April 30, 2020 letter, the defendant’s motion should be denied in its entirety.
II. The Government’s Extensive Efforts to Secure an Indictment
Starting on approximately March 9, 2020, grand jury panels within the Eastern District of New York experienced diminished attendance due to concerns surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, no regular grand jury in this district has had a quorum since March 13, 2020. See In re: Coronavirus/COVID-19, Administrative Order 2020-11, p.1.
On Monday, March 16, 2020, two days in advance of the preliminary hearing scheduled in this case, the government attempted to present an indictment in the matter to the regular Monday grand jury, but a quorum was not present. The next day, Tuesday, March 17, 2020, in an attempt to present the case to a grand jury in which a quorum was present, the undersigned AUSA and witnesses convened, 50 miles away, in Central Islip, New York, to present the case to the grand jury sitting in the courthouse there. Unfortunately, a quorum was not present. On Wednesday, March 18, 2020, the AUSA and witnesses again convened at the United States District Courthouse in Brooklyn to present the case to the regular grand jury, but again, a quorum was not present.
The defendant incorrectly asserts that this case could have been presented to the special grand jury that considered superseding indictments in another case on Wednesday, March 18, 2020. (Def. Mot., p. 4). As this Court is aware, a special grand jury has been empaneled by order of the Chief Judge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3331, and the special grand jury does not hear cases where the sole charge under investigation is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Here, the only charge under investigation, and the only charge the defendant faces, is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Therefore, the case was not presented to the special grand jury. Once again, the grand jury that should have been available to consider an indictment in this defendant’s investigation on March 18, 2020 – the regular Wednesday grand jury – did not have a quorum that day. The fact that the special grand jury did not consider an indictment in this case had nothing to do, as the defendant mistakenly asserts, with whether “rich and high profile defendants” were involved. (Def. Mot., p. 5).
Essentially, the defendant faults the government for not predicting the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Eastern District of New York. As noted above, however, the government went to great lengths, on three consecutive days and in two separate locations, to secure an indictment within the 14-day requirement of Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(c). Its lack of success in presenting the case to a grand jury was due only to the extraordinary circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 9 Filed 05/06/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 25
4
The defendant’s remaining contentions regarding how the government could have proceeded in the case (i.e., securing an indictment before charging the defendant via complaint or presenting the case to a grand jury in less time than is required) are without merit and supporting authority. Moreover, Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1 clearly specifies that the government has 14 days from the defendant’s initial appearance to present the case to a grand jury. Although the government was under no obligation to seek an indictment prior to the 14th day from the initial appearance, the government took extensive steps to present an indictment to a grand jury authorized to consider charges in this case: first, on day 12, in Brooklyn; then, on day 13, in Central Islip; and, yet again, on day 14, in Brooklyn. The government was thwarted, despite its extensive efforts, due to the extraordinary circumstances presented by the COVID-19 pandemic which caused the absence of grand jury quorums.
III. This Court’s April 30, 2020 Order is Consistent with Other Courts’ Orders
Other courts have similarly found that justice required the continuance of a preliminary hearing due to the extraordinary circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. In United States v. Carrillo-Villa, 2020 WL 1644773, April 2, 2020 (S.D.N.Y.), Chief United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the Southern District of New York found that “‘extraordinary circumstances exist and just requires the delay’ in the deadline for holding a preliminary hearing.” U.S. v. Carillo-Villa, at *3. See also United States v. Munoz, 2020 WL 1433400, March 24, 2020 (S.D. Cal.) (in extending the preliminary hearing deadline, the court found that “extraordinary circumstances exist and justice requires” the preliminary hearing be continued beyond the 14-day deadline of Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1).
IV. No Basis Exists to Dismiss the Complaint
For the first time in his motion for reconsideration, the defendant contends, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(b)(1), that the complaint should be dismissed because the government “chose to unnecessarily delay” presenting the case to a grand jury. (Def. Mot. p. 4). As described in detail above, the defendant’s contention is counterfactual. Both Judge Bloom’s March 18, 2020 Order and this Court’s April 30, 2020 Order were appropriate and lawful given the extraordinary circumstances brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the defendant’s request to dismiss the complaint should be denied.
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 9 Filed 05/06/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 26
5
V. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully requests that this Court adhere to its April 30, 2020 Order granting an extension of time to conduct a preliminary hearing, and deny the defendant’s motion for reconsideration and dismissal.
Respectfully submitted,
RICHARD P. DONOGHUE United States Attorney
By: /s/
Michael J. Bushwack Assistant U.S. Attorney (718) 254-6454
cc: Clerk of Court (CLP) (by ECF and E-mail) Mildred Whalen, Esq. (Attorney for Defendant) (by E-mail)
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 9 Filed 05/06/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 27
1
May 6, 2020 The Honorable Cheryl L. Pollak Chief U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re: U.S.A. v. Douglas Ebanks, 20 MJ 204 Your Honor:
Please accept this letter as a reply to the government’s response to the defense motion to reconsider the decision to grant the government’s motion to continue. The government has not demonstrated that their efforts to obtain an indictment were extensive enough to overcome a finding that unnecessary delay has taken place in the indictment of the federal complaint in Mr. Ebanks’ case. We continue to urge the Court to dismiss the federal complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (Fed.R.Crim.P.) 48(b)(1).
The government’s response addresses the difficulties they had in presenting the case to a
grand jury in the Eastern District of New York, beginning March 16, 2020, two days in advance of the scheduled preliminary hearing. They note that grand juries began experiencing diminished attendance on about March 9, 2020, but fail to address what efforts they took, if any, to bring Mr. Ebanks’ case to a grand jury once diminished attendance became apparent.1 Furthermore, if it became apparent grand jury attendance was diminishing on March 9, the government had 4 days, March 10 through March 13, to present Mr. Ebanks’ case to the grand jury. Instead, despite evidence of diminishing grand jury attendance, the government waited until March 16 before even attempting to get into the grand jury.
With respect to the defense comments on the special grand jury presentation on March
18, 2020, those comments were to note that the government could marshal its efforts and resources in making sure there was a quorum for a special grand jury in a high profile case where no one was expected to go into custody, but apparently would not do the same to ensure there was a quorum for a regular grand jury for Mr. Ebanks, who was in custody.
1 The government also ignores that fact that grand jury attendance was not a problem on March 5 and 6, which, as pointed out in our letter of May 1, 2020, were feasible dates for the government to go into the grand jury. As we pointed out, given the investigation the government must have undertaken in their decision to bring a federal prosecution of Mr. Ebanks’ case, the case would have essentially been grand jury ready as of March 4, 2020.
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 10 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 28
2
The government is incorrect in stating that the defense is faulting the government for not
predicting the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, the defense is faulting the government for not anticipating difficulties in achieving a grand jury quorum beginning March 9, and unnecessarily waiting until the following week to even attempt to present Mr. Ebanks’ case to the grand jury. Governor Cuomo declared a state of emergency in New York State on March 7, 20202; on March 8, 2020 both Governor Cuomo and Mayor DeBlasio issued new guidelines on the use of public transportation and warned individuals to stay out of crowded buses, trains, and subway cars3. By March 9, 2020, New York State and New York City had sent the message that people should stay away from public transportation, and the fact that there were diminishing numbers of grand jurors should have come as no surprise to the government.
The government’s reliance on the cases cited in their response is also misplaced. In those cases, defendants were arrested either after or one day before there were no longer functioning grand juries in the districts. See United States v. Carrillo-Villa 2020 WL 1644773, April 2, 2020 (S.D.N.Y.)(defendant arrested March 19, 2020, with an initial appearance on March 20, 2020--order suspending jury trials and excluding speedy trial time in the S.D.N.Y. issued March 13, 2020, 20 MISC 00154, although not cited in decision); United States v. Munoz, 2020 WL 1433400, March 18, 2020 (S.D.Ca)(defendant arrested March 14, 2020, arraigned March 16, 2020, order of the Chief Judge suspending jury trials and other court proceedings and noting a lack of quorum of grand jurors issued March 17, 2020; court incorporating this order as the basis for cancelling the preliminary hearing and excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act from March 17, 2020 through April 24, 2020). Thus, the government in the cases cited had no ability to proceed in the grand jury at or after the time of the defendants’ initial arraignments. That is not true of the government in Mr. Ebanks’ case.
The government expects the Court to place the burden of their unnecessary delay on Mr. Ebanks, who has now been in custody on a hearsay complaint for more than 60 days. This is extraordinary because as noted in our letter of May 1, 2020, the government chose how to proceed in this case. The government chose not to indict the case prior to Mr. Ebanks’ appearance in federal court. The government then chose to delay the indictment of Mr. Ebanks’ case during the week of March 9, 2020, the weekend before which the governor declared a state of emergency and state and city authorities were advising individuals to travel carefully on public transportation. The government chose to wait until March 16, 2020 to try to present the case to a federal grand jury and were unable to do so. Mr. Ebanks should not be held responsible for the government’s unnecessary delay in going into the grand jury, and the federal complaint against him should be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted,
Mildred M. Whalen Federal Defenders of New York, Inc. Attorneys for Mr. Ebanks
2 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/07/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york-queens.html 3 https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nyc-issues-new-commuter-guidelines-to-combat-coronavirus-spread/2317584/
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 10 Filed 05/06/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 29
3
(718) 330-1290 cc: Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Bushwack, Esq. (via email and ECF
ECF
Case 1:20-mj-00204-RML Document 10 Filed 05/06/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 30
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * Case No. 20-MJ-00204(RML)** Brooklyn, New York* May 8, 2020
v. **
DOUGLAS EBANKS, **
Defendant. **
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TRANSCRIPT OF CRIMINAL CAUSE FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCEBEFORE THE HONORABLE CHERYL L. POLLAK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For the Government: MICHAEL BUSHWACK, ESQ.Asst. United States AttorneyUnited States Attorney’s Office271 Cadman PlazaBrooklyn, NY 11201
For the Defendant: MILDRED WHELAN, ESQ.Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.One Pierrepont Plaza, 16th fl.Brooklyn, NY 11201
Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording,transcript produced by transcription service.
Fiore Reporting and Transcription Service, Inc.
4 Research Drive, Suite 402
Shelton, Connecticut 06484 (203)929-9992
2
(Proceedings commenced at 9:06 a.m.)1
THE CLERK: This is the matter of United States v.2
Ebanks, case no. 20-0204, criminal cause for telephone3
conference. The time now is 9:06 a.m. on May 8th, 2020.4
Counsel, please state your appearances for the5
record. 6
MR. BUSHWACK: For the United States Michael7
Bushwack. Good morning, everyone. 8
THE COURT: Good morning.9
MS. WHELAN: For the Federal Defenders of New York10
and Mr. Ebanks this is Mildred Whelan. Good morning,11
everybody. 12
THE COURT: Good morning.13
And do we have Mr. Ebanks on the phone as well? 14
THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Good morning. 15
THE COURT: Good morning.16
So Mr. Ebanks, if at any point you can't hear17
something that's being said or you don't understand something18
that's being said, please interrupt and we'll try to clarify19
it, okay? 20
THE DEFENDANT: All right. 21
THE COURT: All right. And Ms. Whelan, we are22
conducting this proceeding this morning via telephone23
conference. Mr. Ebanks is appearing by telephone.24
Are you willing to waive his formal appearance by25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
3
video conference, given the difficulties we've been having1
setting things up, and agree to allow him to appear in this2
manner this morning? 3
MS. WHELAN: Yes, Your Honor. And I confirmed that4
Mr. Ebanks had no objection to this procedure on Wednesday5
afternoon, Wednesday, May 6th. 6
THE COURT: Okay. 7
And Mr. Ebanks, do you agree to proceed by8
telephone? I wish we were in court and we could do this face9
to face but, unfortunately, we cannot. So do you agree to10
appear this morning by telephone? 11
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.12
THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.13
THE DEFENDANT: All right. 14
THE COURT: Okay. So I have before me a motion for15
reconsideration of an order that I issued on May 1st further16
extending the government's time to conduct a preliminary17
hearing under Rule 5.1(d). 18
Ms. Whelan, I guess it's your application for19
reconsideration so if you would like to start, maybe we20
should begin with you. 21
MS. WHELAN: Thank you, Your Honor. 22
Your Honor, I'm asking for reconsideration because23
of the fact that Mr. Ebanks is in federal custody on a24
federal complaint.25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
4
This complaint is a hearsay complaint. It has not1
been tested either through preliminary hearing or through the2
federal grand jury. And for those reasons I think it's wrong3
to continue to keep Mr. Ebanks in place beyond the time line4
the forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1.5
When Judge Bloom initially found an extraordinary6
circumstance and the interest of justice required the delay,7
we were at the beginning of the court closings. We weren't8
sure how long things were going to proceed.9
While I accepted that the court had found10
extraordinary circumstances and the interests of justice11
requiring the delay, I opposed the delay that was proposed12
because it was beyond the 14-day delay set forth in 5.1.13
The court denied my application, overruled my14
objections and then Judge Mauskopf issued the administrative15
order further adding preliminary hearings, because I don't16
believe they're covered by the speedy trial rule. There's a17
separate rule of criminal procedure covering preliminary18
hearings, and granted an adjournment until the 27th.19
The court -- the government came in on the 30th and20
has asked for an extension of that time frame but, Your21
Honor, I just think that at this point there has been an22
unnecessary delay in bringing this case to the grand jury. 23
In the government's response they said that while24
they tried on March 16th, 17th and 18th I think in my reply I25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
5
pointed out that the writing was on the wall the week before. 1
And the government's made no showing of any effort that they2
took to try to get Mr. Ebanks' case into the grand jury the3
week of March 9th.4
Additionally, after they had made their claim of5
good cause and Judge Bloom had accepted it, it became clear6
that the government had been able to focus their resources in7
other more high profile cases. 8
And I'm not arguing that the special grand jury9
should have heard Mr. Ebanks' case, but I think it's pretty10
extraordinary that they can muster a quorum for a very high11
profile case where no one was going into custody and no one12
was expected to remain in custody, and yet they couldn't13
focus the same efforts and resources on Mr. Ebanks.14
I think that there has been a demonstration of15
unnecessary delay in this case and I also find that in effect16
this is pointless in keeping him in custody. 17
I mean, that's not a ground, but in terms of the18
court weighing the equities there is a pending indictment in19
New York State.20
If the court can look at Exhibit A to my May 1st21
filing, objecting or asking for reconsideration, Mr. Ebanks'22
case was actually called on March 10th, 2020 in Kings County. 23
And Kings County did not dismiss the case because there was24
no federal indictment at that point.25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
6
So the Kings County indictment is in place. The1
bail that's set in that case is $100,000 over $50,000. I have2
information that Mr. Ebanks is being held on a New York State3
parole hold. 4
So this isn't a case where the court has to choose5
between dismissing a complaint and letting someone back into6
-- you know, back into society who is accused of serious7
crimes.8
Instead, all the court is being asked to do is9
dismiss the hearsay complaint in federal court, send Mr.10
Ebanks back to state court. 11
If the state court continues their prosecution12
where they clearly are because they didn't dismiss the case13
as soon as Mr. Ebanks went into federal custody, that14
prosecution on essentially the same charges can go forward.15
If after the pandemic is over if the government16
decides that they have some interest in this prosecution,17
some special interest, they can indict the case when they18
have quorums again and they can bring Mr. Ebanks back into19
state custody, or into federal custody.20
But at this point, without an explanation, without21
further information as to why they didn't go forward on March22
5th, March 6th, or any of the dates of the week of March 9th,23
especially after New York State declared a state of emergency24
on the -- Saturday the 7th, and then on Sunday the 8th the25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
7
governor and the mayor came out and talked about the new1
degree of care that should be taken in traveling on public2
transportation.3
And then on March 9th to see a diminished4
attendance rate among grand jurors, I think probably pretty5
clearly because of the state of emergency and the change in6
recommendations for travel on public transportation, to not7
make any effort that week to get Mr. Ebanks into the grand8
jury I think is an unnecessary delay.9
And finally to comment on this being some sort of10
an attempt to blame the government for not anticipating the11
pandemic, that's not what I'm trying to do here.12
But, Your Honor, the government is arguing that Mr.13
Ebanks should bear the full brunt of this pandemic. He's the14
one who's in custody on a hearsay complaint and he's the one15
who's in custody, has been in custody for 60 days on this16
hearsay complaint, when there was a case that was indicted,17
that was headed for trial and now all of that's been18
derailed, I don't think Mr. Ebanks should be the one who19
bears the burden of this. And this is all I have. 20
THE COURT: Ms. Whelan, just one question that21
maybe you can answer before I hear from the government.22
You indicated that Mr. Ebanks was scheduled to23
appear in state court for some proceeding I think on March24
12th I believe was what was in your letter.25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
8
Is it your understanding that the state court is 1
proceeding with criminal trials at this time? 2
MS. WHELAN: I'm not sure that they're proceeding3
with criminal trials at this time. Just to correct, I may4
have said March 12th in my letter, but on March 10th I5
received a call from his defender -- his public defender at6
the Legal Aid Society and she was asking me whether the case7
had been indicted, because the state court was saying that it8
hadn't been indicted and they weren't going to dismiss their9
case until they had confirmation that it had been indicted in10
federal court.11
I've spoke with Ms. Ricks since then. At this point12
they are not proceeding with state trials. However, I would13
note that Mr. Ebanks' appearance, his next appearance was14
scheduled for May 12th. The citywide restriction, at least15
the stay at home rules, are expected to be lifted on May16
15th. 17
I don't know -- neither the mayor nor the18
government have explained how they're going to be proceeding,19
how they're going to be moving forward with state courts but20
at this point, yeah, I can confirm there are no trials21
ongoing in state court, but I don't know that that's going to22
be the case after May 15th. 23
THE COURT: And just one other question, because I24
think as you can see in your argument, the government could25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
9
dismiss the charges at this point in time and bring them at a1
later point.2
What is the benefit to Mr. Ebanks to being3
transferred to state prison rather than federal? And I raise4
this because there was another incident, or another case in5
which a request was made to send someone to Rikers because it6
was believed things were better there and, in fact, things7
were actually worse there.8
So I just want to understand from Mr. Ebanks'9
perspective the benefit of being transferred from MDC to -- I10
don't know where he would be held but maybe you would know. 11
MS. WHELAN: Yeah. Your Honor, initially I didn't12
raise this argument about unnecessary delay when Magistrate13
Judge Bloom issued her order on March 18th because I spoke to14
his Legal Aid Society attorney, and I spoke with his parole15
revocation attorney ,and they both advised me not to do it16
because the situation at Rikers in terms of Coronavirus was17
worse. 18
They had active outbreaks that they were at least19
reporting. I don't know that there weren't active outbreaks20
at the MDC, but the MDC wasn't reporting any active21
outbreaks, whereas Rikers was.22
And at that time they were -- it appeared that they23
were overwhelmed and were not able to deal with the outbreak.24
However, prior to filing this motion I spoke to Ms.25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
10
Ricks, who is his Legal Aid Society attorney, and Mr. Urion1
(ph), who is his parole revocation unit attorney, and they2
thought that conditions had gotten better at Rikers.3
So in terms of the physical safety issue, I don't4
see a difference between his being at the MDC now, where I'm5
sure the court is aware the conditions are quite bad, versus6
Rikers, where they appear to be openly and honestly7
addressing the problem that they have, and appear to have it8
under control.9
But the second argument is that, as I pointed out,10
Mr. Ebanks' case is trial ready in the state court. And so11
if he were transferred back to Rikers, if the courts are able12
to open up at the end of the May, the beginning of June, that13
case can proceed to prosecution and Mr. Ebanks is in a14
position to be able to defend himself.15
If the delay in the federal case is continued and16
he's held in federal court to now, which is going to be ten17
days -- June 25th or ten days beyond any further18
administrative order, he's starting at day one.19
The case hasn't been indicted. It would be20
indicted. We would go to court. He would be arraigned on21
the indictment. He would then make a discovery demand. The22
ordinary time frame for the government in providing discovery23
is 30 days. 24
It might be expedited because of the status of the25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
11
state case but, again, he's being put in a position where1
he's being held in federal court, or in federal custody, on a2
case that is not -- has not even begun procedurally, whereas3
the exact same charges are being prosecuted in state court4
and they're ready to go as soon as the restrictions are5
lifted.6
THE COURT: Yeah. Okay. That's exactly why I asked7
whether you knew whether trials were going forward because,8
obviously, if trials don't go forward until after June, he's9
still in the same position, I suppose.10
But in any event, let me hear from the government11
in response. 12
MR. BUSHWACK: Thank you, Judge. A couple of points13
I'd like to make.14
The first is with respect to the resources or15
efforts to secure a grand jury, the special grand jury on16
Wednesday, the 18th. 17
I just want to make very clear that there was no18
marshaling of efforts or resources as it relates to the19
special grand jury.20
Grand jurors are human beings who can either show21
up or not, because on their individual circumstances -- and22
it just so happened that there was a quorum of special grand23
jurors on that Wednesday, March 18th. So that's the first24
thing.25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
12
The second thing is that in response to why the1
government didn't present the case to the grand jury on days2
two or three, which would have been the Thursday or the3
Friday following the demand of the preliminary hearing, you4
know, the government is given 14 days for a reason; to get5
all the ducks in a row and make sure everyone is available.6
And the idea that the day after the defendant7
requested a preliminary hearing that we didn't present the8
case to the grand jury, I don't think that should carry the9
day.10
I also just want to note -- and I'm looking at my11
calendar here, and I'm not suggesting that this is12
controlling, Your Honor. However, the defendant first13
appeared on March 4th.14
Well, that following week on March 11th I had a15
suppression hearing in Central Islip before Judge Tomlinson16
on United States vs. Tunstall. 17
Unfortunately, the defendant refused to come to18
court that day and then it was adjourned until the Friday of19
March 13th, which is when we actually did, in fact, conduct20
that pre-trial suppression hearing. That was on the Friday.21
And then we've outlined in our papers the efforts22
that were made on March 16th, 17th and 18th all in an effort23
to try to present the case to the appropriate grand jury.24
Unfortunately, because of these extraordinary25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
13
circumstances we weren't able to secure a quorum.1
In terms of the statement that the evidence has not2
been tested, it has been tested to a certain degree because3
there is an indictment in state court, as counsel indicates.4
So there has been a finding of probable cause by a5
state grand jury as to the underlying facts and circumstances6
of this case.7
I've also provided information to counsel in terms8
of the strength of the case. I've indicated on numerous9
occasions I'd be more than happy to share additional10
information.11
I'll also note that I notice yesterday that12
Governor Cuomo issued an Executive Order, 202.28 and he,13
through that executive order, further extended the state14
equivalent of preliminary hearing, which is their New York15
Criminal Procedure Law 180-80, finding that if a court finds16
that good cause has been shown, that there can be an17
extension of the time for the state to conduct their felony18
exam, or preliminary hearing, which typically has to happen19
within 144 hours.20
And in that executive order the governor states21
that the inability to impanel a grand jury due to COVID-1922
may constituted as such good cause.23
So I bring that just because it's certainly24
pertinent and it's relevant and it's timely. And for the25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
14
most part, we'll rest on our papers that this pandemic has1
caused these extraordinary circumstances and that justice, in2
fact, does require the delay.3
And as soon as a grand jury is able to be4
empaneled, an appropriate grand jury, the government5
anticipates going right into the grand jury and presenting6
Mr. Ebanks' case to that grand jury.7
THE COURT: Let me ask you, Mr. Bushwack, the8
question I sort of asked Ms. Whelan, which is what's the harm9
to the government in dismissing the complaint at this time,10
understanding that you can come back and reinstate the11
charges either -- I think even by complaint or by grand jury12
indictment once we have a grand jury, that this dismissal13
would be without prejudice.14
And as she has indicated, he's being held on not15
only the state charges but the parole violation as well. So16
it's not likely that he's going to be out in the community17
between now and whenever the next time we can do anything as18
a result of this virus occurs.19
So what's the government's reason for not doing20
that? 21
MR. BUSHWACK: Well, we certainly have an interest22
in this prosecution and essentially just don't feel that it's23
warranted to dismiss this complaint.24
You know, I'm not going to try to predict what will25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
15
or may or could happen in the state system. I don't think1
anyone really has a clear understanding as to when hearings2
and trials are going to proceed and move forward in the state3
system.4
So while you bring up a valid point certainly that5
that is an option, we just don't feel that it's warranted6
here because there has not been any undue delay but for these7
extraordinary circumstances. 8
THE COURT: The other issue, Mr. Bushwack, that you9
haven't addressed is the fact that Judge Mauskopf's latest10
administrative order did extend the time for a preliminary11
hearing, but had a specific caveat that they must be held12
within 60 days of the date of arraignment, which would have13
placed I guess Mr. Ebanks' hearing date for I think May 4,14
had I not issued the further order extending the time.15
And I guess my question is how do we get around16
that? In other words, if the chief judge felt that it was17
appropriate not extend not only speedy trial until June 15th,18
but also all preliminary hearings, why did she put the caveat19
in there that as long as it wasn't 60 days beyond the date of20
initial arraignment?21
I realize you don't have any insight into what the22
judge was thinking, but I guess my question is how do we get23
around that? 24
MR. BUSHWACK: I think that the same reasoning25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
16
applies and I think that the initial executive order, which1
extended it 60 days from the initial appearance, which to2
your point correctly states that that puts us on May 4th,3
unfortunately, the most recent administrative order talked4
about what I would call new arrests, or new initial5
appearances and, unfortunately, was silent as it relates to6
previous arrests or initial appearances that fall in that7
same category.8
So I think those same reasonings that the judge9
used -- and, again, I'm not trying to get into the judge's10
mind, and you're correct that I have no inside information as11
it relates to her reasoning, but I think that the reasoning12
that was applied in the first executive order -- excuse me,13
administrative order, extending the time period for14
preliminary hearings for 60 days after initial appearance15
still applies certainly to the most recent administrative16
order, that the government has 60 days from initial17
appearance to conduct that preliminary hearing.18
So I think the reasoning still applies. For some19
reason unbeknownst to me that specific -- this specific type20
of case, Mr. Ebanks' case and the timing of it wasn't21
specifically addressed in that administrative order. 22
THE COURT: I guess what I would say is I agree23
with you that this is sort of a sui generis case in that I24
suspect there weren't a lot of arrested individuals who25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
17
weren't indicted in that very short period of time that we're1
discussing. But I still have the language of the2
administrative order that I must deal with.3
Ms. Whelan, do you have any thoughts on this issue? 4
MS. WHELAN: Your Honor, I don't. I think Judge5
Mauskopf set out her order. I think that Mr. Ebanks' case6
clearly falls within that order. It's been more than 60 days7
since his initial arraignment and I think that the complaint8
should be dismissed.9
I think, you know, to get back what the government10
was saying about having an interest in this prosecution, the11
prosecutor is saying well, there's 14 days for a reason. And12
he had a suppression hearing in Central Islip on the 11th13
that was then adjourned to the 13th.14
I mean, at that point when grand jury attendance is15
diminishing, that's when the case should have been assigned16
to another AUSA to present in the grand jury if the17
government had such an interest in the case.18
And with respect to not knowing what's going to19
happen in the state, whatever happens in the state with20
respect to Mr. Ebanks' case, it's going to happen before21
anything happens in the federal court. And that's because22
the case is indicted. It's in a trial part. It's ready to23
go. 24
Whereas the federal case is going to have to wait25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
18
until there's a quorum for the grand jury, or the courts1
reopen for preliminary hearings and then there's going to be2
the delay for the arraignment on the indictment. Then3
there's going to be further delay in presentation of the4
discovery.5
And whatever happens in federal court will not6
happen at the rate that the prosecution can take place in7
state court. 8
And the interest to the government, if it was so9
great, should have prompted them, once they realized that10
there was a problem, after the declaration of the state of11
emergency, after the concerns about public transport and the12
evidence of diminished attendance in the grand jury should13
have prompted them to reassign the case, if Mr. Bushwack was14
not available.15
And I think that in this situation that was an16
unnecessary delay in the case and that Mr. Ebanks' federal17
complaint should be dismissed and he should be returned to18
Rikers to stand for state prosecution.19
THE COURT: I have one other issue that neither one20
of you has addressed, and that is that obviously at the time21
of Judge Bloom's initial decision putting off the preliminary22
hearing, the court had no capability of conducting23
proceedings and the court was essentially closed to the24
public.25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
19
However, we now have capability, as primitive as it1
may be, to conduct video proceedings and the CARES Act2
specifically include preliminary hearings as one of the3
proceedings that is authorized to be conducted remotely.4
So my question is -- and this is really directed to5
the government in the first instance, because the government6
under the case law has the burden providing specific factual7
reasons related to this particular case beyond the absence of8
a quorum of the grand jury, what facts would prevent us from9
holding a preliminary hearing by video conference or, you10
know, some other remote capability?11
MR. BUSHWACK: A couple of things, Your Honor. 12
The -- whenever the government was prepared to move13
forward with the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, March,14
18th, the main witness was in my office and we were ready to15
proceed.16
I have since learned that given this pandemic he17
has gone on an extended leave, and some type of18
administrative leave. I don't have further details from that. 19
That information was given to me through a New York City20
Police officer detective.21
In terms of the ability to prepare with the witness22
and prepare that witness for cross examination and the direct23
examination, the whereabouts of that witness, that witness'24
ability to participate in a video conference, I can't -- I25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
20
don't know of those abilities for that witness at this time.1
So it would be extremely difficult to try to2
prepare this witness in such a way that he has is prepared to3
move forward with this preliminary hearing, should it happen4
over video. 5
And the same would hold true for myself, the6
ability to have access to the files. You know, we're7
teleworking, and have the information available to us that we8
could then appropriately prepare for such a hearing would be9
very, very difficult.10
THE COURT: Well, let me ask you this. I mean, you11
say the witness is on extended administrative leave. You12
don't know where he is. I appreciate that. And I think the13
thing that was puzzling to me was you said his willingness to14
appear. I don't really understand what that is.15
Is this a law enforcement officer or a civilian16
witness that we're talking about? 17
MR. BUSHWACK: I'm sorry. Maybe I misspoke. What I18
meant was his ability to just technologically get with a19
video -- just the technology behind videoconferencing. 20
That's all I meant.21
No, he's certainly a willing law enforcement22
witness. So if I misspoke, I apologize. 23
THE COURT: Yeah, I wasn't -- that's fine. 24
But actually, you're just speculating. You haven't25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
21
spoken to him. You don't know where he is. Presumably, you1
prepared -- because you indicated at least on two occasions2
to Judge Bloom that you were ready to go on the preliminary3
hearing.4
You have the burden of proving that there are5
specific facts. And I would suggest you look at this case6
out of the District of Nevada, where the district court, in7
what I hope nobody ever does to me, was a little bit harsh on8
the magistrate judge for not making the specific finding that9
the government had the burden of proving related to that10
case.11
And now I just -- I had it up on my screen a minute12
ago and now I can't find it. Lauren, do you have the cite13
for that -- the Elms case I believe it is.14
THE CLERK: I do, yes. It's 2020 Westlaw 2085970,15
and it's out of the District of Nevada on April 30th, 2020.16
THE COURT: I mean, I guess, obviously, the17
government has put forth its reasons, but I should also ask18
Ms. Whelan whether or not your client would consent to a19
preliminary hearing via video conference. Because if not,20
then the issue is a little clearer for me. 21
MS. WHELAN: Your Honor, I would need to speak22
privately with Mr. Ebanks about the pros and cons. Some of23
my concern would be -- definitely would have to be some kind24
of video. Mr. Ebanks would have to be able to see the25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
22
proceedings.1
I also watched a proceeding on a preliminary2
hearing in the Northern District of Georgia Monday or Tuesday3
of this week. And I was concerned about the inability to see4
the other participants while the conference is going on.5
I mean, I'm not -- I understand that we're all6
operating under difficult circumstances, but it would7
definitely need to be by video. 8
They were able to arrange a separate phone line so9
that the defense attorney and the client could speak during10
the preliminary hearing privately. They had also set up a11
situation where they could carve out a room for sidebars.12
You know, I think that it would be feasible to go13
forward with the preliminary hearing via video if we had that14
same technological situation. My concern would be that so15
far we haven't.16
And there's an issue of -- part of the problem is17
that when they go to looking at documents in evidence,18
everybody disappears from the screen. There may be a way to19
fix that. That may have just been for the audience. But I20
think that we would need to clearly exceed our video21
capabilities now. 22
For example, I've been told that I was going to23
have video conferences with two legal calls this week, one of24
which was Mr. Ebanks, but here was no video in place for us25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
23
to be able to do that.1
The last time I had a presentence interview via2
video the remedy was to put my phone next to the probation3
officer or to put -- the probation officer put her phone next4
to the video monitor and that's how I had to hear. 5
So we would definitely need to have all parties6
visible and available, and we'd have work out the issues of7
the separate phone line for defense counsel. 8
And Mr. Ebanks we'd have to work out the ability to9
present documents and we would have to work out the ability10
to have a carve out space for sidebars, because I was able to11
view the Northern District case because it's a court12
proceeding and it's open to anyone and anyone should be able13
to video remote in to watch this public proceeding. 14
THE COURT: Well, we have recently -- I guess at15
the beginning of this week I think successfully established a16
new process, the Cisco WebEx process, which allows the court17
to conduct proceedings remotely with individuals such as Mr.18
Ebanks, who is currently in the MDC. I personally have not19
tried it yet. I'm supposed to actually be trained today on20
it. So I don't know, Ms. Whelan, if that was what was being21
used in your experience or not. 22
But I guess what I would say is before I rule on23
this issue I need to hear both from the government as to24
whether or not their witness is, in fact, available and could25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
24
be produced by video. And from Mr. Ebanks, after you've had a1
chance to speak to him, Ms. Whelan, about whether or not he2
consents.3
If he does not, then I will deal with the motion as4
it's currently before me, but on the other hand if everyone5
is willing to go forward on video conference, I guess it will6
be up to make sure that we can do it. 7
So can I hear back from you all -- I don't know if8
it's possible to speak to Mr. Ebanks before Monday, but I9
would like to move this along quickly, if we can. 10
MS. WHELAN: Your Honor, I think what I could do is11
I can set up a legal call for Mr. Ebanks either this12
afternoon or Monday so I can speak to him about this issue,13
and then I could hopefully get back to you by close of14
business in Monday. I'm not sure that I'd be able to get back15
to you sooner than that. 16
But if I say it's an emergency, I think they can17
get me a legal call scheduled. 18
THE COURT: Okay. Well, let's aim for that. And I19
assume, Mr. Bushwack, you can reach out and try to find out20
where your witness might be and let me know, you know, what21
his view is.22
I understand the files may be in the office, but I23
do also understand that certain Assistant U.S. Attorneys are24
in the office. So perhaps someone could dig up the file for25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
25
you and get you the information.1
If that's not possible, then I need to know that as2
well. Okay? 3
MR. BUSHWACK: Understood. And how would you like4
to get back in touch, via letter or a telephone conference? 5
THE COURT: Yes. A letter would be fine. And once6
I get your letters, if we need to speak again, then I will --7
you know, if Mr. Ebanks says no, then I just have to decide8
the issues before me.9
So I think letters would be fine in the first10
instance. Okay? 11
MR. BUSHWACK: Okay. Thank you. 12
MS. WHELAN: Thank you, Your Honor. 13
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Whelan, anything else? 14
MS. WHELAN: No, Your Honor. Not from the defense. 15
THE COURT: Okay. If for some reason you cannot16
get a phone conference with Mr. Ebanks, you know, in time to17
get something in to me by close of business Monday, just18
shoot me a quick like one liner saying, you know, I can't do19
it, Judge. Can I have a little more time. Okay? 20
MS. WHELAN: Sure. I will. And if it looks like I21
need an order to help me boost that long, I'll send that22
over. 23
THE COURT: Yes. Just submit one, okay? 24
MS. WHELAN: Okay. All right. 25
Fiore Transcription Service, Inc. 203-929-9992
26
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, everyone. 1
2
(Proceedings concluded at 9:40 a.m.)3
I, CHRISTINE FIORE, court-approved transcriber and4
certified electronic reporter and transcriber, certify that5
the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official6
electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-7
entitled matter.8
9
10
May 8, 202011
Christine Fiore, CERT12
Transcriber13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24