By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Video Photo
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Dec 29 – Columbia University doctor Robert A. Hadden was hit on September 9, 2020 with a Federal indictment charging that "sexually abused dozens of female patients, including multiple minors, under the guise of conducting purported gynecological and obstetric examinations."
The case was assigned to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Richard M. Berman, who handled the case of Jeffrey Epstein until he died in the Metropolitan Correctional Center. Epstein came up during the bail argument, which Hadden won. Inner City Press live tweeted it, below.
On July 14, 2021 Judge Berman docketed a letter the US had filed, with a full paragraph redacted, that it will seek a superseding indictment on another count of enticement, regarding an adult Victim-6. Letter on Inner City Press' DocumentCloud here.
On August 2, 2021 Hadden's publicly funded (for now) counsel filed a series of motions, with redactions, citing Evelyn Yang and request dismissal of the case. It mentioned Evelyn Yang's interview then redacts a two line sentence. Then, "Andrew Yang public a statement, this media attention led to outrage regarding the 'lenient' sentence Mr. Hadden had received in the DANY Prosecution." Yes.
On December 15, 2021, Judge Berman held a proceeding and Inner City Press live tweeted it here (podcast here)
Jump cut forward a year to December 14, 2022, the pre-trial conference before the January 4, 2023 (one day?) jury selection - Inner City Press was in the courtroom, threadette:
Hadden's lawyer says they commit that in front of the jury they will not question the motives of the prosecution.
Hadden plans to call a Dr Berg as his OB-GYN expert. Jury will not get the "speaking" portion of the indictment.
Asst US Attorney: We may want some victim to testify not under their full names [like in US v Ghislaine Maxwell trial a year ago]
On December 22, Judge Berman held another conference and ruled: "1- defense motion to preclude generalized expert testimony of Dr. Eddleman is denied; 2- defense motion to preclude testimony and evidence re: fibroid procedure Victim-1 is denied in part and granted in part; 3- defense motion to strike all surplusage from S2 Indictment is denied as moot; 4- defense motion to preclude impact evidence/testimony is denied; 5- defense motion to preclude introduction of prior consistent statements is denied; 6- defense motion to preclude the 911 call from 3rd party is denied; 7- defense motion to preclude patient witnesses from being referred to as victims, minor victims or survivors is denied in part and granted in part; The Court will schedule a conference for next week to address other outstanding motions."
On December 29, 2022 Judge Berman held a final final pre-trial conference, Inner City Press live tweeted here:
Judge Berman: The government names in its motions some 20 non-statutory victims not listed in the indictment, including the defendant touching Victim 8's [private parts], licked [same] rubbed Victim 10. US says under Rule 404b, such evidence is admissible here
Judge Berman: The defense wants to exclude this bad-act evidence. They say Mister Hadden is not charged with sexual assault in the indictment, so they cannot bring in this evidence... The defense wants a pre-trial admissibility hearing on four witnesses
Judge Berman: Minor Victim 3, Victim 27, Witness 1 and Witness 2 - the US motion to admit these is granted under Rule 413 and 414 (minors), citing US v. Vickers, the 2d Circuit. The Court denies the request for a pre-trial hearing on this After a pause, the US v. dirty doc Hadden hearing continues.
Judge Berman: The 9-1-1 call is admissible, as an excited utterance. Witness 3 left his work to go to Dr Hadden's office, to meet Victim 15 who said Hadden [xxx-ed my xxxx].
Judge Berman: So I'll see you all for jury selection, we'll be up in Judge Stein's courtroom.
AUSA Pomerantz: Our motion to seal witnesses names? Judge Berman: I'm inclined to grant it, it's the same as in Judge Nathan's Maxwell trial, yes? A: Yes.
There followed a discussion of if notes prospective jurors jot on questionnaires are voir dire records, then this from Judge Berman: "rulings on the following motions in limine: 1- government motion to admit defendant's February 2016 guilty plea is granted; 2- government motion to admit evidence of defendant's other sexual assault and abuse crimes, etc. is granted and defense application for pre-trial admissibility hearing is denied; 3- government motion to admit June 29, 2012 text messages is denied as moot and government motion to admit testimony about the text messages and to admit 911 call is granted; 4- government motion to admit prior consistent statements is denied in part as moot and granted in part; 5- government motion to preclude challenges to credibility of non-witnesses will be ruled upon following receipt of more information on non-witnesses, due 12/30/22 at 12:00 pm; 6- government motion to preclude defendant's prior statements in medical records, notes, etc. will be ruled upon following receipt of medical records, notes, etc., due 12/30/22 at 12:00 pm; 7- government motion to preclude evidence of defendant's failure to commit other bad acts is granted; 8- government motion to preclude evidence tending to support jury nullification is granted; 9- government motion to preclude evidence of the government's motives for the prosecution is denied as moot; 10- government motion to preclude evidence of the "#MeToo" movement is granted; 11- government motion to preclude expert testimony of Dr. Berg is denied as moot; 12- government motion to preclude expert testimony of Ms. Unger is granted; 13- government motion to preclude expert testimony of Dr. Goodsell is denied in part and granted in part. 14- 12/22/22 ruling denying defense motion to preclude introduction of prior consistent statements is confirmed and defense request for clarification regarding the governments opening statement is denied as moot and defense request for confirmation that the government should request permission before eliciting prior consistent statement testimony is denied; 15- 12/22/22 ruling denying defense motion to preclude 911 call is confirmed; 16- defendant motion to preclude certain witness testimony is denied in part and granted in part. "
Inner City Press will be similarly covering this Hadden trial. Watch this site.
Back on June 13, 2022, when Hadden was arraigned on a superseding indictment, in preparation of the September 12, 2022 trial. Inner City Press live tweeted it here, and below.
On July 28, Judge Berman moved the trial to November 30: "it does not appear feasible to conduct jury selection in this matter as currently scheduled for September 12, 2022. The Court has taken into consideration several factors including, but not limited to, the total number of jurors that reasonably will be required for jury selection; the length of the trial; the rights of victims; SDNY trial schedule relating to COVID; and incarcerated defendants awaiting trial. The Court also considered that the Defendant is out on bail. The Court proposes that jury selection commence on November 30, 2022. The Court will hold a (remote) pretrial conference on August 10, 2022 at 11:00 am to discuss the timing of jury selection and requests that counsel meet and confer prior to the conference. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/28/2022)."
On August 4, the trial was pushed into 2023: "ORDER as to Robert Hadden: it is hereby ORDERED that the time between June 13, 2022, and January 9, 2023, the trial date in this matter, is hereby excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U'.3S1.6C1.( h)(7)(A), in the interests of justice." Some say justice delayed is justice denied. Watch this site.
From June 13, 2022: OK - now Doc Hadden is being arraigned on superseding indictment
Judge Berman: The superseding indictment includes an additional victim and says Dr. Hadden coerced the individual to travel to engage in sexual conduct [etc] Hadden's Federal Defender [yes, he has counsel that's taxpayer funded at least for now] "Not guilty"
Federal Defender: We need a CARES Act finding.
Judge Berman: It can be done this way if you consent.
FD: We consent.
Judge Berman: Great. We will also exclude time under the Speedy Trial on S2. Motions in limine are due July 18 at noon. Voir dire due August 15 and all disclosures including Giglio to be exchanged by Aug 26. Trial on Sep 12. Adjourned.
On January 20, 2022, another conference (actually, an oral argument) which Inner City Press live tweeted here and below.
Motions to suppress were denied in early May 2022: "ORDER denying [133] Motion as to Robert Hadden (1). Defendant's motion, dated November 22, 2021, seeks the suppression of evidence obtained from the Defendant's home in Englewood, New Jersey. In the alternative, Defendant seeks a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). The Court incorporates by reference the arguments counsel have raised in their motion papers and at oral argument which was held on January 20, 2022. Based upon the written and oral record in this case, the Court denies the motion to suppress and finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted... II. Conclusion and Order. Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his home (Dkt. 133) is denied. Additionally, there is no basis to hold a Franks hearing as the Court does not find there were intentional and/or material misrepresentations or omissions in the wairnnt affidavits. "A Franks hearing is warranted if the defendant can make a preliminary showing that (a) the warrant affidavit contains a false statement, (b) the false statement was included intentionally or recklessly, and (c) the false statement was integral to the probable cause finding." United States v. Caraher, 973 F.3d 57, 62 (2d Cir. 2020). No such showing has been made. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 5/4/2022)."
The [first] motions to suppress were denied on January 25: "DECISION & ORDER denying [134] Motion as to Robert Hadden (1). Defendant Robert Hadden's motion, dated November 22, 2021, seeks the suppression of evidence obtained from a laptop (the "Apple iBook") belonging to Hadden's deceased father that was seized on August 12, 2020, from his father's residence in Glen Cove, New York. The Court incorporates by reference the arguments counsel have raised in their motion papers and at oral argument, which was held on January 20, 2022. Based upon the written and oral record in this case, the Court denies the motion to suppress and finds that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted.... Defendant Robert Hadden's motion to suppress evidence seized from his deceased father's home (ECF No. 134) is denied. There is no basis to hold a hearing."
On February 2, a trial date was set: "ORDER as to Robert Hadden. Based upon the record herein, including counsels' joint February 1, 2022 letter and the conference held on February 2, 2022; the trial schedule is as follows: 1- Trial will commence with jury selection on Monday, September 12, 2022; 2- A final pretrial conference will be held on Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 10:00 am; 3- Motions in limine are due July 18, 2022 (noon); 4- Responses to motions in limine are due August 1, 2022 (noon); 5- Joint proposed jury charges, joint proposed voir dire, joint proposed verdict sheet, joint list of names and places, are due August 15, 2022 (noon); 6- All disclosures between and among counsel, including, Rule 404(b) notice; 18 U.S.C. § 3500 and Giglio; and Rule 26.2 materials; and exhibit and witness lists should be exchanged as agreed to among counsel, but in no event later than August 26, 2022."
Back on September 9, 2020 close to 10 pm, Hadden emerged from Pre-Trial then the courthouse. Inner City Press and three others sought to ask him questions, about the victims' statements and double jeopardy. He did not answer. A man in an FBI t-shirt led him first up Mulberry Street, then past the NYC criminal court at 100 Centre Street and finally out to Broadway and Reade Street where a taxi was waiting for Hadden. Periscope video here.
SDNY Acting US Attorney Audrey Strauss held a press conference about the case on September 9.
Inner City Press asked her if the indictment had been returned by a fully in-person grand jury, or if it had included a virtual component of the type being questioned in the CIA / Joshua Schulte, Melzer, Balde and other cases.
US Attorney Strauss said the indictment was returned in the normal course, by a sitting grand jury. Periscope video here. Alamy photo here. She declined to say whether her office would be seeking detention pending trial, or agreeing to a bail package as they did in the recent case of indicted UN rapist Karim Elkorany.
There was no mention at the press conference for the charges against Hadden made publicly by Evelyn Yang, the wife of Andrew Yang, and not much mention of Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance.
Hours later, a bail proceeding before SDNY Magistrate Judge Robert Lehrburger (and not the Magistrate on duty on September 8, Barbara Moses). Inner City Press live tweeted it:
Speaking for the US is AUSA Maurene Comey...
Judge Lehrburger: We are proceeding under the CARES Act. This is open to the press and public. Any recording is prohibited. Hadden's lawyer: We are only representing him for this proceeding
Judge Lehrburger: You have the right to remain silent... You have a right to be released unless I find danger to the community or risk of non-appearance for future court proceedings. [Note: Ghislaine Maxwell was found a risk of flight]
Judge Lehrburger: You are charged with six counts of Enticement and Inducement to Travel To Engage In Illegal Sex Acts. Hadden's lawyer enters not guilty plea. AUSA Maurene Comey: The government seeks detention as risk of flight.
AUSA Comey: Today, the government has communicated with 20 victims. They all say he should be detained. He has the financial means to flee. Because of the minor victim, there is a statutory presumption of detention that cannot be overcome.
AUSA Comey: He abused dozens of victims, including multiple minors, as prominent institution's [Columbia U] OB-GYN. He would sent nurses out of the room. [Did they ever report it?]
AUSA Comey: He conducted unneeded breast exams. He touched genitals without any medical purpose. He attempted to stimulate them, to gratify himself. For two decades. One victim, he had delivered as a baby
AUSA Comey: The women traveled to see him because he worked at a prominent institution. [What about Columbia?]
The case is US v. Hadden, 20-cr-468 (Berman).
***
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.
