By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Thread Song
BBC - Decrypt - LightRead - Honduras - re CNN
SDNY COURTHOUSE, Jan 19 – In the conclusion of the month long trial of accused CIA leaker Joshua Schulte, on the morning of March 9 the jury returned guilty verdicts on Counts 8 and 10, with mistrial granted on all other counts. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Paul A. Crotty set March 26 for the next date. Then it was moved to April 22 (then May 18). March 9 thread here. Song here.
Now on January 19 Schulte has filed a habeus corpus petition detailing conditions in MCC 10S: 24-7 lighting in cases, no access to books or religious services and... FBI mail interception. His BP-9 filings are not responded to. "The Court should rule that the MCC-NY imposed unconstitutional conditions of confinement upon Mr. Schulte and should order relief." We will stay on this.
On November 4, a June 7, 2021 trial date was set. But now on November 16 Schulte has moved to dismiss, citing the exclusion of African Americans and Latinos from the jury pool, as issue developed for many defendants through the US v Balde case before Judge Failla, which Inner City Press is also covering. Motion to dismiss here. There is a declaration from statistician Jeffrey Martin.
Now on December 9, Judge Crotty has overruled the objections of the MCC / BOP to Josh Shulte having monthly video calls with his family. The MCC said "allowing an inmate to have social video calls will put pressure on the MCC to allow other inmates to have social video calls the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) cannot accommodate. It will also be much more difficult for us to arrange for the requisite FBI and BOP monitoring required by the SAMs at this stage in the pandemic. Finally, BOP has a strong interest in implementing uniform privileges for its inmates. Granting the defendant’s request would only encourage other inmates to try to prevail on their attorneys to clog the courts with requests for relief. The Government is always ready and willing to work with defense counsel to resolve reasonable requests to BOP. This request, however, seeks special treatment where none is warranted. The judiciary should not accept the defendant’s invitation to micro-manage the decisions rendered by prison officials in the executive branch."
But on December 9 Judge Crotty ruled that "MCC's objection is overruled. The defendant's circumstances are so unique that they cannot constitute a precedent in any way." Some say, tell that to others in the MCC. Watch this site.
Inner City Press live tweeted on Nov 4, here:
The newest member of Schulte's legal team says they want trial pushed to Fall - they have not been in SCIF since March, they are not comfortable going into current SCIF. Also, questions about access to the server(s)...
Schulte's newest lawyer: "We proposed late next summer or early next Fall for trial... Mr. Schulte has already been convicted on two counts on which he's unlikely to get time served. There will be a third trial on the [child] pornography trial"...
Judge Crotty: What takes so long in the selection of the SCIF? Schulte's newest lawyer: The current SCIF cannot have more than 2 people. But we have a team of 3 lawyers and two paralegals- Sabrina Shroff: For the 1st trial, Schulte can into SCIF three times a week
Shroff: Mr Branden wasn't there very much, which caused consternation to Mr Schulte... It was be absurd for me to talk to Mr. Schulte then step out and Mr. Zas step in - absurd.
Judge Crotty: So you had multiple people in the SCIF. Shroff: Including our expert.
Shroff: I had to drag a couch in from the hall. I don't want to get into it. Sometimes we had to stay in the SCIF almost all night. Now no expert will travel up to NY.
Judge Crotty: Government? AUSA: The SCIF issue is tied to Covid, which might remain next Fall
AUSA: The new expert will have the benefit of an extensive unclassified record from the first trial, that can be reviewed from anywhere. Don't let the SCIF hold this up. Our case is going to be streamlined.
Schulte's newest lawyer: The US said they were making a new SCIF. We are hoping for that. But we do not have it. We haven't actually retained the expert yet. He'll talk to us about that in January. Then he'd have to prepare. Mr. Laroche is not a defense lawyer
AUSA Laroche: True, I'm not a defense lawyer. There are 2 SCIFs available, one in the cell block. It's been approved. But I'll get more info about 2 person limit. I'll talk to Mr Hartenstein (sp). The one in the cell block, it's easier to produce Mr. Schulte there
AUSA Laroche: Let's at least set a motions schedule for a trial early to mid next year. Shroff: Mr. Hartenstein was told only two people in SCIF. Mr. Zas has not been to Federal Defenders since February. I've been working from home. Even if court told us to go in
Shroff: ...Mr. Schulte needs the expert. This is not a case like Mr. Saipov [West Side van attack] - he needs forensics. We need the expert in there. And we don't have one yet.
Judge Crotty: Are you entitled to an expert? Shroff: It would be error to not have one
Zas: I'm reluctant to put myself in that environment, especially where things stand with the pandemic in these months.
Daniel Hartenstein: The District Executive office, the recommendation is only 2 people in the SCIF, with filters. We can do that.
Judge Crotty: If we set a schedule that is acceptable to Mr. Schulte, is there a Speedy Trial argument we are going to reserve on? Shroff: No, we would agree to the exclusion of time.
Judge Crotty: Six months is enough to prepare. Trial to begin first week in June
Shroff: We won't have an expert. We ask for more time. There'd be ineffective assistance claims for Mr. Schulte.
Judge Crotty: Ms. Shroff, you said until after the election. The election can't go on forever.
Shroff: Is AUSA Laroche now part of our defense team?
Laroche: That's not what I said--
Judge Crotty: I'm setting a trial date in June... June 7, 2021. Anything else today?
Shroff: Your Honor?
Click.
Watch this site.
Now after the US Attorney's Office re-indicted Schulte with a grand jury either in White Plains or Manhattan with virtual juror(s), his lawyers have asked for time to reply since they cannot easily reach him in MCC lock-down.
Inner City Press live tweeted the Aug 17, 11 am conference in the case, below.
Now after the September 14 conference in US v. Balde (grand jury issues) that Inner City Press reported on, Schulte's lawyers have listed motions to come: "Re: United States v. Joshua Adam Schulte, 17 Cr. 548 (PAC) Dear Judge Crotty: As ordered by the Court, Mr. Schulte notes below the motions he may need to consider and file prior to trial on the remaining espionage counts. The motions are as follows: 1. Motion to dismss the S3 indictment because the jury pool for the grand jury that indicted Mr. Schulte failed to include a fair cross section of grand jurors. Ms. Shroff attended the September 14, 2020 status conference in United States v. Balde, 20 Cr. 281, (KPF) which was by telephone due to the ongoing pandemic. Discovery and information is still being provided to the defense by the clerk of the Court. See, Ex. A (transcript of the 9/14 status conference). Mr. Schulte is following the schedule set by Judge Katherine P. Failla. He has preserved his objections by joining in the objections made by the defense in Balde. 2. Expert notice and litigation related to possible new defense witnesses including new fact and expert witnesses.
3. Motion for access to the same evidence that the government provided to its forensic expert, Mr. Leedom. If this motion is granted, Mr. Schulte may not have other motions. If the motion is granted in part, denied in part, or fully denied, Mr. Schulte will move to preclude the testimony of Mr. Leedom. 4. Depending on the government’s additional motions under CIPA §§ 2 and 10, Mr. Shulte may have a CIPA § 6 motion. 5. Motion for the production of all Stash files released by WikiLeaks.
6. Motion for the production of information and material that was referenced in the testimony of the government’s trial witnesses but that was never given to the defense. 7. Motion in limine to preclude introduction at trial of certain portions of Mr. Schulte’s MCC notebooks. See, Govt Ex. (806. 809). 8. Motion in limine to introduce at trial certain portions of Mr. Schulte’s MCC notebooks. See, Govt Ex. (806. 809). 9. Motion to preclude evidence of Mr. Schulte’s two counts of conviction. 10. The issues and concerns raised at the August 14, 2020 ex-parte status conference remain unabated, and the limitations on the defense being able to proceed to trial on the timetable proposed by the government remain unchanged. See, Ex. B. Transcript of 8/14 ex-parte conference. Mr. Schulte reserves his right to file a motion (potentially) challenging the pretrial and trial procedures that may be implemented in light of the COVD-19 pandemic. Mr. Schulte also reserves his right to file additional motions if circumstances warrant."
And, on September 17, this: " LETTER by Joshua Adam Schulte addressed to Judge Paul A. Crotty from Sabrina Shroff, Edward Zas & Deborah Colson dated September 15, 2020 re: Joshua A. Schulte's Continued Request for Access to the ESXI and FSO1servers that were provided by the FBI/CIA to its own expert."
Judge Crotty's 1st question: How do objections about how defendants have been indicted SDNY during COVID19- with virtual grand jurors - impact this case?
Schulte's lawyer cites the US v. Balde case before Judge Failla (which Inner City Press is also covering)
Judge Crotty: What about a trial date? AUSA LaRoche: We are ready to set a date. Next trial will be shorter - fewer witnesses. As to the SCIF, our talks with CISO are that a new location could be provided for Mr. Schulte to be produced to
CISO: Friday I approved funding for a SCIF in a US Marshals' interview room. Schulte would be separated from his lawyers by a metal screen
Judge Crotty: Where is his new SCIF? CISO: On the 4th floor of 500 Pearl, Marshals' interview room. Schulte's lawyer Shroff: I haven't seen it. And we wouldn't be willing to enter a Marshals' space where others from MCC come in and out. And mesh screen? No way.
Shroff quotes Judge Furman, that setting a trial date in these times is "pure fantasy." Says that Schulte's expert is 80 years old, unwilling to enter space where others from MCC are brought in. Won't speak in person at Columbia.
Shroff: I'd prefer this to be ex parte and not open to the press, but the upshot is that our expert may not be able to participate, we may need a new one... Ms. Colson is new to the case, has not yet met Mr. Schulte. And the witnesses they don't call, we will
Shroff: This is not the right case to be the first... I've heard judges want those to be 1-week Felon in Possession cases... Mr Zas is almost 60 years old. Judge Crotty: We're looking at having an epidemiologist check out both locations.
Judge Crotty: Ms Shroff, what would be a reasonable trial date? Shroff: I don't know. I told Judge Torres the same thing this morning. I have no experts I can start work with. Why don't we do what Judge Broderick has in Saipov. I think Mr. Laroche is on that case
Shroff: I can't go to DC without a 2 week quarantine afterward. DC is on the list.
Judge Crotty: October?
Shroff: The grand jury, in the case before Judge Failla 5 grand jurors Zoomed in [Inner City Press is covering that case too]. "Gov Cuomo won't let me go into a restaurant and a meal. How can I have a jury trial?" AUSA Laroche: There was a lot there.
AUSA Laroche: As some point the defense need to state what steps are needed before a trial. Just raising a myriad of issues on the call.. The Saipov case is different.
Judge Crotty: David could you give me a time in mid September? To get a report from Ms. Shroff. David Gonzalez: Sept 16. AUSA Laroche: I think we could do this trial in January. Shroff: Mr. Schulte is not getting his mail in the MCC.
AUSA Laroche Let's exclude time until Sept 16.
Judge Crotty: Granted. Ms Shroff, when do you want to go ex parte with me? This week, I prefer. Shroff: How 'bout next Mon the 24th? 2 pm. Judge Crotty: We'll hold it then. That concludes this conference.
On June 9 the US Attorney's Office filed this: (S3) SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FILED as to Joshua Adam Schulte (1) count(s) 1sss, 2sss-3sss, 4sss, 5sss, 6sss, 7sss, 8sss, 9sss. (jbo)." Full text on Patreon here.
Now Count 6 has been dismissed.
On June 17, the US Attorney has asked for more time to respond to Schulte's lawyers request for Grand Jury information, citing a decision in another SDNY case Inner City Press is reporting on: "Re: United States v. Joshua Adam Schulte, S3 17 Cr. 548 (PAC) Dear Judge Crotty: We write to respectfully request additional time to respond to the defendant’s June 15, 2020, request for records and papers used in connection with the constitution of the Master and Qualified Jury Wheels in this District. We have learned that similar motions have been made in other cases in this District. See United States v. Balde, No. 20 Cr. 281 (KPF); United States v. Williams, No. 20 Cr. 286 (WHP); United States v. Baker, No. 20 Cr. 288 (LJL); United States v. Henry, No. 20 Cr. 293 (LJL). Yesterday in Balde, Judge Failla issued an order granting the Government’s request to speak with Linda Thomas, this District’s Jury Administrator, prior to taking a position on the motion in that case, and scheduling a call with the Government, defense counsel, and Ms. Thomas for June 30, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. (See No. 20 Cr. 281, Dkt. 21, Exhibit A). In that order, Judge Failla also directed the Government to coordinate with counsel in “any other cases with similar motions” so that they may also participate on the call. Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court adjourn the current June 19, 2020 response deadline so that the Government and defense counsel can participate on the call with Ms. Thomas prior to litigating the defendant’s motion. If the Court grants this request, the Government respectfully requests until July 7, 2020 to file a substantive response to the defendant’s motion." Watch this site- and this.
More on Patreon here. Song here.
Back on the afternoon of February 28 the US in an emergency hearing dropped Count 2 against Schulte, and admitted that it can never be revived: jeopardy has attached. Inner City Press has obtained the transcript and tweeted and uploaded it here on Scribd, on Patreon here.
On March 5, Judge Paul A. Crotty and both side's lawyers held a closed door proceeding in the judge's robing room. Afterward Assistant US Attorney Matthew Laroche said that the transcript should be sealed until after a verdict.
Inner City Press immediately wrote to Judge Crotty and the docket, for the fifth time in this proceeding (here's III and IV): "Dear Judge Crotty: This supplements the January 22, 23 and 26 and February 24, 2020 submissions on this topic on behalf of Inner City Press and in my personal capacity. Your Honor on Janaury 31 ruled inter alia that "[t]he Government is directed to make transcripts and exhibits available to the public no later than the evening after the day of testimony." Docket No. 293, at 15. This morning after a robing room discussion about Juror Number 5 (and perhaps other matters) from which the press was excluded, AUSA Laroche urged your Honor to seal the transcript of that discussion until AFTER there is a verdict. That is unacceptable, and inconsistent with your previous order. The purpose of this letter is to formally request at the earliest time - 10 minutes after AUSA Laroche's statement, your ruling on which is unclear - that the transcript of the robing room proceeding be made available immediately, as well as all other exhibits which Inner City Press has continued available to the public on https://www.patreon.com/MatthewRussellLee."
Meanwhile, as now excused Juror 5 left the courthouse, Inner City Press caught the tail / end of her comments to two intrepid tabloids. She specializes in buttocks sculpting - and most explosively, indicted that she believed Schulte was naughty but not guilty. This would seem at a minimum to provide fuel for a defense appeal in the event of a conviction. But first - the transcript. Watch this site.
On March 4, the jury deliberated for a full second day without reaching a verdict. Or perhaps the whole jury did not deliberate - as Inner City Press first tweeted (thread here), the foreperson passed out a note that Juror Number Four (whose name was said) was refusing to deliberate with others, was conducting their own inquiry into the evidence. Schulte's lawyer Zas urged Judge Crotty to let time elapse before acting. Could this type of independent inquiry be more favorable to Schulte than that US? Thread here; Inner City Press is staying on the case.
On March 3, the jury deliberated and asked at least nine questions. Inner City Press live tweeted it, thread here. There were questions about locking and unlocking computers, and if Schulte was ever diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, a matter raised in cross-examination. Perhaps of concern for the defense was the lack of questions about alternate suspect Michael.
At day's end in Judge Crotty's courtroom gallery it was only Inner City Press and one of the Assistant US Attorneys, who waited to say he and Schulte's lawyers would try to answer some of the questions the next day, March 4. Inner City Press will be there - watch this site.
On March 2 were the closing arguments, which Inner City Press tweeted, thread here
More on Patreon here.
See Inner City Press filing into the docket on Big Cases Bot, here. Watch this site. The case is US v. Schulte, 17-cr-548 (Crotty).
***
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.
